Podcast appearances and mentions of frederick taylor

We keep talking about China speed as if it were a new discovery. Early supplier involvement is presented as a fresh idea. Consultants are back in the building with slick decks about taking time out of the process, and the industry is nodding along as if none of us have seen this before. Jan has seen it before, so she went digging in her basement and came back with proof.A facilitator's guide from Allied Signal, dated 1993. Total Quality through Speed. One page asks the exact question the industry is asking again right now: What's the cause for the pause? Simplify, eliminate, integrate. Alongside the binder, two letters from Bill Wilcock, then president of Allied Signal Braking Systems, congratulated Jan's team for reducing the time to get an aftermarket lining assembly for the 1994 Acura Integra from months to 9 days on the shelf. They did it by mapping the process, stripping out approval levels, and bringing the suppliers in. The second letter admits the team wasn't even officially chartered. They just went and did it, and then the tools went back in the basement.In this solo episode, Jan makes the case that the barrier was never the methodology. It was leadership and culture. Speed was a value at Allied Signal under Larry Bossidy, something you were measured on, and somewhere along the way, it became a program with a binder instead of a way of operating. The one thing that has changed since 1993 is that we now question whether an approval level should exist at all, and that question carries a price. Fewer approvals mean people have to be trusted to decide. Plenty of leaders talk about that. Far fewer are ready for it.Jan also hands you the starting point. One process. Map it, find the whitespace, take out 50 percent, then do it again. China didn't invent speed. They just refused to let the approval chain eat it.Themes Discussed in this EpisodeWhy China speed is not a new ideaTotal Quality through Speed and the cause for the pauseNine days: what speed looked like in 1993Concurrent engineering and early supplier involvement since the 80sWhy the tools stalled, and the culture killed themEmpowerment as the real price of speedWhere to start: one process, one value streamLeading with conviction instead of complianceThis episode is sponsored by Lockton, click here to learn more

گردآوری و روایت: ارشیا عطاری تدوین: طنین خاکسا  موسیقی تیترا‌ژ: مودی موسوی (اینستاگرام | توییتر) طراح گرافیک: تارا نباتیان   اینستاگرام چیزکست | توییتر چیزکست | تلگرام چیزکست  وبسایت چیزکست حمایت مالی از چیزکست ارتباط مستقیم: chizcast@outlook.com   منابع این قسمت: Bundesarchiv, Stasi Records Archive, What Was the State Security? Bundesarchiv, The Unofficial Collaborators of the MfS. Bundesarchiv, The Reconstruction of Torn Documents. Berlin Wall Foundation, Victims at the Berlin Wall. Berlin Wall Foundation, The Berlin Wall and Bernauer Strasse historical materials. Chronicle of the Berlin Wall, November 9, 1989 chronology and Harald Jäger materials. Chronicle of the Berlin Wall, biographies of Ida Siekmann, Günter Litfin and Peter Fechter. U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian, The Berlin Airlift, 1948-1949. U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian, The Berlin Crisis, 1958-1961. U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian, Marshall Plan, 1948. U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian, NATO, 1949 and Warsaw Treaty Organization, 1955. U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian, Fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, 1989. U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian, Collapse of the Soviet Union, 1989-1992. U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian, Germany and the Two Plus Four settlement. German History in Documents and Images, Workers' Uprising of June 17, 1953. German History in Documents and Images, GDR Repression and Opposition collection. German History in Documents and Images, Leading GDR Writers Protest the Expatriation of Wolf Biermann, 1976. German History in Documents and Images, Peace Prayers and Monday Demonstrations in Leipzig. German History in Documents and Images, Peaceful Revolution collection, 1989. German History in Documents and Images, Mass Demonstration on Alexanderplatz, November 4, 1989. German History in Documents and Images, Appeal “For Our Country”, November 26, 1989. German Bundestag, The Freely Elected People's Chamber of the GDR. German History in Documents and Images, material on the GDR economy and the 1980s debt crisis. Mary Fulbrook, The People's State: East German Society from Hitler to Honecker. Mary Fulbrook, Anatomy of a Dictatorship: Inside the GDR, 1949-1989. Frederick Taylor, The Berlin Wall: A World Divided, 1961-1989. Hope M. Harrison, Driving the Soviets up the Wall: Soviet-East German Relations, 1953-1961. Timothy Garton Ash, The Magic Lantern: The Revolution of '89 Witnessed in Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin, and Prague. Ilko-Sascha Kowalczuk, End Game: The 1989 Revolution in East Germany. CIA, Origins of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, 1949-1950. Patrick Radden Keefe, Wind of Change podcast, 2020. Interviews with Klaus Meine on the 1988-1989 Soviet concerts and the writing of Wind of Change. Scorpions, Crazy World, 1990, and contemporary release history of Wind of Change.

In 1976, an 11-year-old girl from a small farm in Wales stood before a glass case in Greenwich, England, staring at strange uniforms and a document called the Constitution. The exhibition was titled "The British Story of the American Revolution." That was all Jan Griffiths knew of America, what she could see through the glass.Decades later, she sits in the engine room of that country, in Detroit, at the heart of the auto industry.This episode marks America's 250th anniversary, and Jan tells her own story to get at something bigger. She takes us from the shop floor at BorgWarner in Kenfig, South Wales, where the smell of oil and coolant hooked her for life, to Muncie, Indiana, to the drive up I-75 when the Detroit skyline first came into view, and something rushed through her. It is the story of what this country and this industry gave a young woman who would not have had the same shot back home in the 1980s. She names the people who believed in her, and she means every one of them.Then she turns it forward. Jan draws a straight line from Frederick Taylor's work in 1911 and Henry Ford's moving assembly line in 1913 to the management playbook most legacy automakers still run today. The country is 250 years old. The industry's operating system is barely younger, and it has hardly changed. Culture is not soft, she says. Culture is how we behave and how we decide, and the industry does not have another century to sort it out, while Chinese OEMs move at speed, and relay-race handoffs slow down every decision.She points to Jim Voss and the movement building inside Tenneco as proof of what happens when people rise up for a cause. And she reminds us what Detroit already knows about getting knocked down and coming back, from bankruptcy to two of the Big Three going under and returning stronger.This is one immigrant's love for two countries and one industry, and a challenge to every leader who still talks about transformation instead of defining it.Themes Discussed in this EpisodeAn immigrant's love for two countriesFrom a Welsh farm to Detroit's engine roomWhy culture is not softThe 100-year-old automotive playbookCompeting with Chinese OEMs on speedMoving from a relay race to all players on the courtDetroit's grit and comeback storyLeaders defining transformation, not just talking about itThis episode is sponsored by Lockton, click here to learn more

Is process mining just Six Sigma with better software? Two former Lean Six Sigma consultants — now Product Managers at ServiceNow — answer that question. The answer is more interesting than you’d expect. Tomas Galle (Six Sigma Black Belt) and Roz Parpia (Green Belt) join host Bobby Brill to trace process intelligence from factory floors and sticky-note whiteboards to process maps generated in under ten minutes from data you already own. They cover the real cost of the old way, non-conformance, the ServiceNow Playbooks feature, Task Mining, and the question every AI agent deployment should be asking but usually isn’t: did the process actually get better? CHAPTERS0:00 Introduction — Tomas Galle & Roz Parpia2:02 Is process mining just Six Sigma?4:13 The belt system explained — Black Belt, Green Belt, and the punchline4:58 Manufacturing observation: what process improvement looked like before7:51 The real cost of the old way — six figures, six months, one process8:46 Customer reaction: ten years of work, solved in ten minutes9:03 Where ServiceNow sits in the Process Intelligence market10:56 Annual physical vs. wearable — continuous vs. snapshot13:13 Conformance checking and the happy path14:10 Non-conformance: what it is and why everyone should care16:58 Static statistics vs. analysis on the move17:05 Playbooks: responding to non-conformance in real time18:54 How to get started today — free evaluation projects, no license needed20:26 Task Mining: the human layer process mining can’t see22:00 You’re already sitting on a goldmine22:53 Closing thoughts IN THIS EPISODE• Why “that’s just Six Sigma” is actually the right reaction — and what it’s still missing• Frederick Taylor’s stopwatch, the Gemba walk, and how the factory floor became the IT service desk• Why a single process improvement engagement used to cost six figures and take up to six months• The Gartner Magic Quadrant for Process Intelligence — and Roz’s candid take on where ServiceNow really stands• The wearable vs. annual physical: why continuous process mining beats the yearly audit• Conformance checking and the happy path — what it means when your process deviates• Non-conformance explained with a real change management example (87% vs. 98% CAB approval)• How the ServiceNow Playbooks feature turns detection into real-time correction with one click• Task Mining: what people do in Outlook, Teams, and Excel that never appears in your process map• How to start mining your own data today — no license required, no IT admin needed GET STARTEDIf you’re a ServiceNow customer, you already have access to free evaluation projects — no license needed.https://www.servicenow.com/au/products/process-mining/get-started.htmlhttps://www.servicenow.com/docs/r/now-intelligence/process-mining/process-mining.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVrU0TQ7ldMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLKROYqnc10 TAGS#ServiceNow #ProcessMining #ProcessIntelligence #SixSigma #LeanSixSigma #TaskMining #AIAgents #WorkflowAutomation #DigitalTransformation #ContinuousImprovement #NonConformance #Playbooks #ServiceNowPodcast #EnterpriseAI #ProcessImprovement #GembaWalk #ConformanceCheckingSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is process mining just Six Sigma with better software? Two former Lean Six Sigma consultants — now Product Managers at ServiceNow — answer that question. The answer is more interesting than you’d expect. Tomas Galle (Six Sigma Black Belt) and Roz Parpia (Green Belt) join host Bobby Brill to trace process intelligence from factory floors and sticky-note whiteboards to process maps generated in under ten minutes from data you already own. They cover the real cost of the old way, non-conformance, the ServiceNow Playbooks feature, Task Mining, and the question every AI agent deployment should be asking but usually isn’t: did the process actually get better? CHAPTERS0:00 Introduction — Tomas Galle & Roz Parpia2:02 Is process mining just Six Sigma?4:13 The belt system explained — Black Belt, Green Belt, and the punchline4:58 Manufacturing observation: what process improvement looked like before7:51 The real cost of the old way — six figures, six months, one process8:46 Customer reaction: ten years of work, solved in ten minutes9:03 Where ServiceNow sits in the Process Intelligence market10:56 Annual physical vs. wearable — continuous vs. snapshot13:13 Conformance checking and the happy path14:10 Non-conformance: what it is and why everyone should care16:58 Static statistics vs. analysis on the move17:05 Playbooks: responding to non-conformance in real time18:54 How to get started today — free evaluation projects, no license needed20:26 Task Mining: the human layer process mining can’t see22:00 You’re already sitting on a goldmine22:53 Closing thoughts IN THIS EPISODE• Why “that’s just Six Sigma” is actually the right reaction — and what it’s still missing• Frederick Taylor’s stopwatch, the Gemba walk, and how the factory floor became the IT service desk• Why a single process improvement engagement used to cost six figures and take up to six months• The Gartner Magic Quadrant for Process Intelligence — and Roz’s candid take on where ServiceNow really stands• The wearable vs. annual physical: why continuous process mining beats the yearly audit• Conformance checking and the happy path — what it means when your process deviates• Non-conformance explained with a real change management example (87% vs. 98% CAB approval)• How the ServiceNow Playbooks feature turns detection into real-time correction with one click• Task Mining: what people do in Outlook, Teams, and Excel that never appears in your process map• How to start mining your own data today — no license required, no IT admin needed GET STARTEDIf you’re a ServiceNow customer, you already have access to free evaluation projects — no license needed.https://www.servicenow.com/au/products/process-mining/get-started.htmlhttps://www.servicenow.com/docs/r/now-intelligence/process-mining/process-mining.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVrU0TQ7ldMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLKROYqnc10 TAGS#ServiceNow #ProcessMining #ProcessIntelligence #SixSigma #LeanSixSigma #TaskMining #AIAgents #WorkflowAutomation #DigitalTransformation #ContinuousImprovement #NonConformance #Playbooks #ServiceNowPodcast #EnterpriseAI #ProcessImprovement #GembaWalk #ConformanceCheckingSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In our most recent episode of The Brian D. O'Leary Show, we get to the core of how we build and scale businesses. I sat down with my friend Hunter Hastings, a prolific author, economist, venture capitalist, and passionate entrepreneur. We dissected his new book, Venture Mode: Escape the Administration Trap by Finding and Unleashing Entrepreneurial Leaders (co-authored with Mark Packard, published by Amplify Publishing, May 5, 2025), to explore the dangerous traps of corporate growth and how to revive the entrepreneurial spirit. Episode Chapters & Highlights The Administration Trap: Defining the machinery of corporate control, the pressures of financial markets, and how administrative bloat kills productivity. Founder Mode & Brian Chesky: How the Airbnb founder cut through suffocating management layers to get back "in the details" with his customers. The Origins of the MBA: Tracing the roots of administrative sclerosis back to mid-20th-century logical positivism and Frederick Taylor's scientific management. Entrepreneurial Economics: A fresh look at Austrian economics, focusing on customer sovereignty, entrepreneurship, and experimental action over top-down strategy. The Atom of Value: Why the single interaction between a customer and a service provider is the true foundation of scale (with a nod to Netflix's Reed Hastings). AI and One-Person Corporations (OPCs): How AI is allowing entrepreneurs to bypass the administration trap entirely, creating a new era of solo scalability. The Masters of Business Enterprise: Replacing the outdated university MBA with principle-based learning and experiential corporate apprenticeships. The Enablement Economy & Optimism Through Unease: Why being unhappy with the current situation (short-term pessimism) is the fundamental driver of innovation and a better future. Here are the key takeaways from our conversation. The Administration Trap As businesses scale and achieve success, they often fall into what Hunter calls “administration mode.” Instead of prioritizing the innovation that initially drove their growth, companies become obsessed with the machinery of corporate control. This obsession manifests as: An intense focus on controlling future uncertainty. Pressure to deliver smooth quarterly earnings and meet financial market expectations. The addition of suffocating management layers, installed processes, and rigid annual planning cycles. The cost of this control is staggering. Hunter notes that we may have lost 50% of the US economy's potential for productivity growth due to this administrative crisis. It stifles innovation and removes humanity from business, tracing its roots back to mid-20th-century logical positivism, where the “scientific method” and pure measurement began to overshadow human creativity. Breaking Free: Shifting to Venture Mode To escape this trap, Hunter advocates for “venture mode.” A prime example of this philosophy in action is Brian Chesky, founder of Airbnb. As his company grew, Chesky realized that administrative layers were blinding him to the actual customer experience. His solution was to cut through the bureaucracy to get back “in the details,” speaking directly with hosts and consumers to figure out what was working in the market. You don't have to be a founder to apply this. Anyone in an organization can champion this mindset by removing barriers and prioritizing free-thinking experimentation over rigid systems. Entrepreneurial Economics: The “Atom of Value” Much of our conversation centered around Austrian economics, which Hunter masterfully reframes for the modern business leader. We broke down three practical principles: Customer Sovereignty: The customer is the boss. The business cycle doesn't start with production; it starts with sensing the customer's need. Entrepreneurship: This is the act of taking that sensed need, turning it into a novel idea, and bringing it back to the market. Action Over Strategy: True entrepreneurship relies on experimental action rather than relying on a top-down, predictive strategy. This approach zeroes in on what Hunter calls the “atom of value,” the single critical interaction between one customer and one service provider. By perfecting that single interaction, you can scale the entire system. Replacing the MBA and Embracing AI We also tackled the archaic nature of the traditional MBA, something that often breeds the very administrative mindset we need to avoid. Hunter envisions a “Masters of Business Enterprise,” splitting education into two distinct paths: learning scalable principles of value creation outside of traditional universities, and engaging in experiential, active learning within actual corporations. Looking to the future, we discussed the role of Artificial Intelligence in completely bypassing the administration trap. We are seeing the rise of AI-enabled, “One-Person Corporations” (OPCs). By leveraging AI for administrative tasks and tapping into broader industrial ecosystems, individuals can scale incredibly fast without ever installing bloated management structures. Optimism Through Unease I often call myself a short-term pessimist and a long-term optimist. Hunter pointed out that this perfectly aligns with the Austrian economic principle of “unease.” According to Ludwig von Mises, being unhappy with the current situation is the fundamental driver of innovation. It is our unease with administrative bloat that will propel us toward a highly adaptable, highly entrepreneurial future. To dive deeper into this shift toward venture mode thinking, listen to the full episode. Resources & Links: Get a free chapter and pick up a copy of the book at venturemode.biz. Order a copy of Venture Mode directly on Amazon. Read Hunter's ongoing insights on Venture Mode and the “enablement” economy at The Value Creators on Substack. Step Out of the Machine The ground-floor discount for our premium subscription has closed, but true sovereignty doesn't sit around waiting on a sale. You can spend the rest of your life as an optimized data point, letting the elite corporate class dictate your values and your income. Or, you can step out of the managed system, embrace the grit, and secure absolute independence for your future. But you cannot do this alone. The digital landscape is littered with lone wolves who thought they could outsmart a system designed to crush them. That is why I built a fortified, paid community for serious minds to discuss culture, business, and strategy in real time. Stop subsidizing the scavengers who hold your values in contempt. Choose your path: The Annual Subscription ($100/year): Unlocks unrestricted access to our private, paid community forum (The Junto), our strategic monthly briefs, and the full historical archive. The Founding Member Tier ($497/year): Strictly capped at 20 serious operators. Unlocks all standard subscription benefits, plus four private, 1-on-1 strategy sessions to unblock your business bottlenecks and exclusive expert deep dives. Let's get to work on halting the decline. Subscribe today at https://briandoleary.substack.com/subscribe

“It's not your fault.” This is the message Alissa Quart has spent over a decade trying to get people to believe when it comes to economic hardship. Right now, it feels harder than ever to embrace. Alissa Quart is the executive director of the Economic Hardship Reporting Project, the nonprofit Barbara Ehrenreich built after writing her groundbreaking exposé Nickel and Dimed. A journalist herself, Alissa is the author of seven books, including Squeezed: Why Our Families Can't Afford America and Bootstrapped: Liberating Ourselves from the American Dream. She's spent over a decade reporting on class, caregiving, and economic precarity. In this episode, Jessi and Alissa discuss: Why "insecurity" is a more honest and unifying framework than "affordability," and how it builds solidarity across class lines The data behind it: 52% of US families are now financially insecure by one measure, and nearly half of workers lack confidence they could find a job they'd want "Apocalyptic insecurity": the new framework Alissa and economist Lynn Parramore developed to describe how employers use AI dread to manipulate workers The Frederick Taylor parallel: how AI is repeating the logic of scientific management, a century later "AI brain fry": the exhaustion of performing enthusiasm for AI at work while feeling something very different about it personally Why losing the narrative of generational progress is its own kind of psychological injury The AI dividend, universal basic income, and what a modern New Deal could look like Why naming the problem matters: how failing to recognize insecurity as systemic — rather than personal failure — can curdle into self-blame and even disordered coping What Alissa tells her own daughter about finding agency in an uncertain future Follow Alissa Quart and Jessi Hempel on LinkedIn.

Frederick Taylor joins the Morning Show to discuss the upcoming Rustin Day of Film taking place in West Chester and much more!

This episode is brought to you by Your Clockwise Week—a personalized weekly structure built around your actual life, not an ideal one. If your week feels full but not fitting, you can learn more at mikevardy.com/yourclockwiseweek.We've built entire systems around moving faster — faster responses, faster workflows, faster outputs. But speed isn't something you pursue. It's something that shows up when you've built something worth moving through quickly. That distinction came up early in this conversation and stayed with me long after we stopped recording. If you've ever felt like you were moving fast but not actually going anywhere, this episode is for you.Dawna Ballard is a professor of organizational communication at the University of Texas at Austin, where she specializes in chronemics — the study of time as it relates to human communication. Her book, Time by Design: How Communicating Slow Allows Us to Go Fast, draws on decades of field research across medical settings, child advocacy networks, and organizations of all kinds to make a case that's both counterintuitive and deeply practical: slowing down your communication is often the fastest thing you can do.Six Discussion PointsThe distinction between time — the clocks, calendars, meetings, and appointments we design — and temporality — the natural rhythm of relationships, sleep, learning, and meaningful conversation — isn't just semantic. It's the lens through which everything else about productivity either clarifies or collapses.The Children's Advocacy Centers case study is one of the most compelling real-world arguments for slow design: agencies handling urgent child abuse cases discovered that pausing for regular 90-minute monthly meetings didn't cost them time — it gave them speed, trust, and accuracy across the entire system.The obsession with efficiency didn't emerge from wisdom. It came from factory capitalism, Frederick Taylor's time-and-motion studies, and the industrialist impulse to extract skill from workers and standardize it. For knowledge work, creative work, or relational work, it's simply the wrong operating system.Speed activates the nervous system the same way physical threats once did. When we treat every delay as a danger — a long line, a slow inbox, a stalled meeting — we stay in low-grade fight-or-flight. And that's not a state in which anyone does their best work.The return-to-office push isn't really a productivity argument. At its core, it's a trust issue dressed in the language of culture — and forcing people into physical spaces doesn't resolve the underlying misalignment between what organizations measure and what actually produces quality work.AI is most useful when it handles the quantity tasks — summarizing, simplifying, organizing — so that humans can stay focused on the quality work that requires genuine thought, relationship, and judgment. The key is knowing which is which.Three Connection PointsTime by Design — Published by MIT Press, available wherever books are sold, including Kindle/Amazon. This is the kind of book you sit with, not sprint through.Time Thieves documentary — Explores the Greek concepts of Kronos and Kairos through case studies from Japan, Germany, Italy, and the UK. A rare look at how different cultures experience the collision of time and temporality.Are You Polychronic or Monochronic? — CBC Radio / The Current — This is the piece that put Dawna on my radar. It introduces her research on "time personalities" — the idea that chronic lateness or rigid punctuality often isn't a character flaw but a reflection of how someone is wired to experience time. A good entry point before diving into the book.Dawna references a phrase the Navy SEALs use: slow is smooth, and smooth is fast. She reaches for it deliberately. It isn't a rejection of speed — it's a reframe of how you earn it. If you've been treating speed as the destination rather than the evidence that something deeper is working, this conversation is worth more than one listen. And if you want to keep thinking about what it means to stop doing productive and start being productive, that's exactly what we'll keep exploring here.Until next time, remember: stop doing productive, start being productive. See you later. If this episode resonated, I'm exploring ideas like these more deeply in my upcoming book, Productiveness. You can follow along as it takes shape at mikevardy.com/productiveness.

Melissa Reeve explores why the biggest barrier to AI adoption is not technology, but outdated organizational systems. Drawing from her book Hyper Adaptive, she breaks down how legacy structures and silos limit adaptability and innovation.Tune in to hear her insights on AI-native organizations, value streams, AI activation hubs, and how companies can rewire roles, learning, and workflow for the future of work.Show Notes[00:25] Introducing Melissa ReeveMelissa's book Hyper Adaptive: Rewiring the Enterprise to Become AI Native is available through major bookstores and online platforms. Listeners can also learn more about her work and insights at hyperadaptive.solutions and connect with her on LinkedIn.[01:24] The Legacy of Taylorism and Functional SilosShe explains the “ghost of Frederick Taylor” and how Taylorism, originating in 1911, introduced the idea of management dictating the “one best way” of doing work. She reflects on how this mindset still exists in modern organizations and how it evolved through World War II-era functional specialization, which created silos such as sales, marketing, and finance.[03:33] AI Learning Systems and Activation HubsMelissa explains the shift toward AI-native organizations, focusing on how roles, processes, and learning systems need to be rewired. She introduces the AI learning flywheel, where AI power users are supported to become change agents rather than working in isolation. She also describes AI activation hubs that track AI developments and distribute simplified insights across the organization to improve learning flow and break down silos.[07:04] Breaking Down Silos Through Networked LearningShe explains that AI activation hubs can connect across departments, enabling knowledge to flow not only top-down but also across the organization. Insights from one area, such as legal, can be shared with finance or HR. She emphasizes that this creates a more deliberate learning system and addresses what she calls a “distribution problem” in how organizations share knowledge.[08:10] From Doing Work to Managing AI SystemsMelissa explains that as organizations move toward automation, jobs shift from doing tasks to building, monitoring, and maintaining the systems that perform those tasks. She uses the washing machine analogy to show how technology changes the nature of work rather than eliminating it. She introduces the AI Impact Hub, which focuses on upskilling and helping employees transition into roles supporting AI-driven systems.[10:09] Defining AI-Native OrganizationsShe defines AI-native as the ability to sense and respond in near real time. She explains that organizations will shift toward orchestrated value streams—cross-functional groups focused on delivering end-to-end customer value. Using a banking example, she shows how teams aligned to customer segments can respond faster and more effectively with AI support.[11:28] AI-Native Companies and Embedded AIShe explains that AI-native companies, unlike legacy organizations shaped by Taylorism and silos, are structured around direct customer value delivery. In these organizations, AI agents are embedded into workflows, enabling more seamless and adaptive execution.[11:55] A Blueprint for TransformationMelissa explains that organizations already structured around value delivery and embedded AI agents may not need a full transformation model. However, for legacy enterprises, governments, and nonprofits, her framework provides a five-stage blueprint to gradually rewire people, processes, and roles to become more AI-native and remain competitive in a rapidly evolving landscape.[13:00] Where to Learn More About Melissa ReeveMelissa's book Hyper Adaptive: Rewiring the Enterprise to Become AI Native is available through major bookstores and online platforms. Listeners can also learn more about her work and insights at hyperadaptive.solutions and connect with her on LinkedIn.

Several filmmakers including Frederick Taylor, Mike Zolomij, Mike Callen, and Kevin Suplee join the Morning Show ahead of this weekend's West Chester Film Festival.

Dave "CAC" Kellogg and Ray "Growth" break down one of the oldest productivity metrics in business and explain why, in the age of AI-native software, it has never mattered more. This episode covers the full arc from Frederick Taylor's factory floors to Cursor's $3.3M per employee, with the rigorous definitional discipline the Metrics Brothers are known for.What We Cover:The metric's 100-year history. Revenue per employee traces its roots to scientific management in the late 1800s, gained traction as a Wall Street efficiency screen in the 80s and 90s, and became a standard signal of business model quality in M&A diligence. The core math is simple: annual revenue divided by headcount. What is not simple is how you define the denominator.FTE vs. employee: why the definition matters more than the formula. The E in FTE stands for full-time equivalent, not full-time employee, and that distinction drives real measurement decisions. How do you count a part-time contractor? What about 200 offshore developers on a third-party vendor's payroll? Ray and Dave walk through the practical choices, including why offshore headcount is almost never counted on a 1:1 basis and why that decision can dramatically change your benchmark comparison.Public SaaS companies in 2025: the benchmark is $395K. Using the Benchmarkit SaaS 100 index (134 public SaaS companies), the median revenue per employee in 2025 is $395K, up from $327K in 2022, a 21% improvement in three years. ARR per FTE runs about 5-7% higher at $413K. The shift reflects the industry's move from growth-at-all-costs to efficient revenue growth.Private SaaS companies: size matters. ARR per employee scales materially with company size. At the $5-20M ARR stage, the median is $144K. By $100M+ ARR, the median reaches $300K. The recurring-revenue tailwind from a large renewal base is a significant driver as companies scale.AI-native companies have reset the benchmark entirely. Where the historical range for enterprise software was $200-400K per employee, AI-native companies operate at a fundamentally different level. Cursor reached $1.67M per employee at 60 people, and now runs at $3.3M per employee at 300 people. Midjourney is at $4.7M. Anthropic is in the $3-5M range on a run-rate basis. This is not a modest improvement over traditional SaaS. It is a 10x shift.One important caution on the AI numbers. Many of the figures being cited by AI-native companies are monthly run-rate revenue annualized (last month times 12), not trailing 12-month GAAP revenue. When growth is compounding fast, that distinction can dramatically inflate the productivity figure. The Metrics Brothers flag this as a meaningful source of confusion in how the benchmark is being discussed today.The AI tailwind may be temporary, at least in part. Current customer acquisition friction for AI software is unusually low, given experimentation budgets and departmental purchasing. As enterprise procurement tightens (74% of enterprise AI purchases now involve IT), GTM investment will likely increase, and revenue per employee for AI-native companies may stabilize or compress. Ray and Dave estimate that steady-state productivity is more likely to be in the 3-5x range over traditional SaaS, not 10x.Revenue will replace ARR as the standard numerator. The rise of usage-based and hybrid pricing is rendering ARR less meaningful for a growing share of companies. Snowflake, Datadog, and MongoDB do not report ARR. As AI-native pricing models proliferate, Ray and Dave expect the industry to converge on revenue as the standard numerator across productivity benchmarks.What about revenue per agent? Ray raises the forward-looking question: as AI agents take on SDR, sales, and other GTM functions, how do we measure agent productivity? Dave's take is that "revenue per agent" is likely a dead end, partly because agent instances are nearly impossible to count and partly because the right way to price and measure agents is to decompose their capabilities, not to anthropomorphize them as headcount equivalents.The Bottom Line:Revenue per employee is a deceptively simple metric with genuinely complex definitional choices underneath it. For B2B SaaS executives, the 2025 benchmarks are $395K (public) and $144-300K (private, depending on scale). For AI-native companies, the numbers are in a different category entirely, though some of that gap reflects accounting choices as much as true productivity gains. The metric is worth tracking closely, both as a board-level efficiency signal and as a leading indicator of business model quality.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

From a 0.9 GPA in rural Utah to the faculty of Harvard, Todd Rose's life is a testament to the idea that the "standard path" is a myth. In this return appearance on Infinite Loops, Todd opens up about the gritty, unvarnished reality of his origin story—a journey that includes ten minimum wage jobs, a stint administering enemas for a living, and the life-changing intervention of a department secretary named Marilyn Diamond. We dive deep into the "Dark Horse" mindset and why the pursuit of fulfillment, rather than the pursuit of excellence, is actually the most reliable driver of success. We also bond over our mutual disdain for Frederick Taylor, explore the devastating impact of "average-based" thinking on human potential, and discuss why dignity is the bedrock of a free society—illustrated by a heartbreaking personal encounter with a jar of chunky peanut butter. If you've ever felt like a square peg in a round hole, or if you're looking for a roadmap to navigate the coming cultural shifts in the age of AI, this conversation is essential listening. I hope you enjoy the conversation as much as I did. For the full transcript, episode takeaways, and bucketloads of other goodies designed to make you go, "Hmm, that's interesting!", check out our Substack. Show Notes: The 0.9 GPA and the "Correct Answer Machine" Ten minimum wage jobs and the advice to "get longer gloves" Marilyn Diamond: The improbable mentor who saved Todd's education The "No Average Brain" discovery in neuroscience Why we both despise Frederick Taylor and Scientific Management Dark Horses: Ignoring the destination to find the path Degrees of Freedom: How Todd hacked the GRE The "Chunky Peanut Butter" story and the importance of dignity Resentment, trust, and the future of AI The "Rainy Day Club" and how paradigms actually shift Books Mentioned: Collective Illusions; Todd Rose The End of Average; Todd Rose Dark Horse; Todd Rose Improbable Mentors; Mike Perry The Principles of Scientific Management; Frederick Taylor The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; Thomas Kuhn The Wealth of Nations; Adam Smith Man's Search for Meaning; Viktor Frankl Dignity; Chris Arnade Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy; Joseph Schumpeter

What if the problem with construction isn't your process but your culture? In this first episode of Jason's Japan Reflections & Lean Series, Jason takes you inside what he learned studying Lean culture at its source and how Japan's quiet principle of respect for people changes everything. From jet lag to cultural shock, from U.S. “just figure it out” grit to Japan's “shoulder-to-shoulder” mentorship, Jason unpacks the biggest leadership shift our industry needs. This isn't another buzzword about empathy, it's a blueprint for transforming teams, training, and trust. You'll hear: Why “Respect for People” is the beating heart of Lean. How Japanese teams train side-by-side instead of blaming mistakes. The difference between improving chaos and building standards. Why Western management still carries the scars of Frederick Taylor. And how you can start leading like Japan without ever boarding a plane. If you've ever wondered why Lean thrives in Japan but stalls elsewhere, this episode gives you the answer. Listen now and learn how to build a culture that truly respects people. If you like the Elevate Construction podcast, please subscribe for free and you'll never miss an episode.  And if you really like the Elevate Construction podcast, I'd appreciate you telling a friend (Maybe even two

Gareth Morgan menyajikan pandangan yang revolusioner tentang organisasi. Ia berpendapat bahwa semua teori manajemen berakar pada metafora yang tersirat. Metafora ini membentuk cara kita melihat, memahami, dan mengelola suatu organisasi sehari-hari. Buku "Images of Organization" karya Gareth Morgan ini mengajarkan bahwa tidak ada satu pun pandangan yang sempurna. Setiap metafora menawarkan wawasan yang kuat, namun sifatnya selalu parsial. Tantangannya kini adalah mengembangkan kemampuan untuk memanfaatkan banyak perspektif secara bersamaan. Ini adalah kunci untuk menjadi pemimpin yang efektif dalam menghadapi dunia yang penuh ambiguitas. Metafora tidak hanya memperindah bahasa, tetapi juga cara kita berpikir. Ketika kita menyebut "organisasi adalah mesin," kita menyoroti aspek rasional dan strukturalnya. Morgan mengajak kita untuk menyadari adanya distorsi yang diciptakan oleh setiap perumpamaan. Metafora pertama dan paling umum adalah organisasi sebagai mesin. Pandangan ini melahirkan sistem birokrasi yang terpusat dan berjenjang hierarki. Organisasi dirancang agar beroperasi secara efisien, andal, dan sangat terprediksi. Dasar pemikiran ini berasal dari era Revolusi Industri dan praktik militer klasik. Frederick Taylor, dengan konsep manajemen ilmiah-nya, memecah pekerjaan menjadi tugas-tugas kecil yang rutin dan spesifik. Tujuannya memastikan setiap orang bertindak persis seperti komponen mekanis. Kelebihan model mesin adalah efisiensi luar biasa dalam melaksanakan tugas yang sederhana dan stabil. Ini terbukti sukses di lini perakitan atau layanan cepat saji, seperti yang diterapkan McDonald's. Namun, kelemahannya adalah ketidakmampuan untuk beradaptasi cepat terhadap perubahan lingkungan. Model ini juga dapat menciptakan birokrasi yang kaku dan menghambat pemikiran kreatif. Pengkotak-kotakan tugas dan spesialisasi yang ketat cenderung menciptakan fragmentasi di dalam organisasi. Hal ini sering menimbulkan masalah seperti apatis dan minimnya inisiatif di kalangan karyawan. Morgan menyarankan kita harus siap beralih dari pola pikir mekanistik ini di tengah era perubahan yang cepat. Metafora kedua melihat organisasi sebagai organisme hidup. Organisasi dipandang sebagai sistem terbuka yang mutlak bergantung pada lingkungan luar. Ia memiliki "kebutuhan" yang harus dipenuhi untuk menjamin kelangsungan hidup. Konsep organisme menekankan pentingnya lingkungan dan kemampuan adaptasi. Teori ini melahirkan Teori Kontingensi, yang menegaskan bahwa tidak ada satu cara pun yang terbaik untuk berorganisasi. Bentuk organisasi yang tepat sangat bergantung pada jenis lingkungan dan tugas yang dihadapi. Stabilitas lingkungan memerlukan struktur yang mekanistik, sementara turbulensi membutuhkan struktur yang organik dan fleksibel. Organisasi organik dicirikan oleh fleksibilitas tinggi, jaringan komunikasi terbuka, dan desentralisasi kekuasaan. Contohnya adalah adhocracy atau organisasi yang berbasis tim proyek inovatif. Model ini lebih mampu beradaptasi karena fokus utamanya adalah kelangsungan hidup total, bukan sekadar pencapaian tujuan operasional. Morgan mengupas teori ekologi populasi yang menempatkan lingkungan sebagai kekuatan seleksi utama. Teori ini berpendapat bahwa hanya organisasi yang "paling cocok" yang akan bertahan di tengah kelangkaan sumber daya. Namun, pandangan ini dikritik karena dianggap terlalu deterministik dan meremehkan pilihan strategis manajemen. Batasan mendasar metafora organisme adalah asumsi kesatuan fungsional internal. Organisasi sebenarnya tidak seutuh atau seharmonis organisme biologis. Selain itu, organisasi pada dasarnya adalah konstruksi sosial yang dibentuk oleh ide dan keyakinan, bukan hanya struktur fisik yang kaku. Metafora otak menyajikan organisasi sebagai sistem pemrosesan informasi yang kompleks. Organisasi dipandang memiliki kemampuan belajar dan mengatur diri sendiri secara cerdas. Inti dari pandangan ini adalah cybernetics, yakni ilmu kontrol dan komunikasi. Terdapat konsep umpan balik negatif yang menjelaskan mekanisme regulasi diri sistematis. Ini membantu sistem mendeteksi dan mengoreksi penyimpangan dari norma yang telah ditetapkan. Pembelajaran sejati memerlukan "double-loop learning," yaitu kemampuan untuk mempertanyakan dan mengubah norma operasional yang mendasarinya. Birokrasi sering terjebak dalam "single-loop learning" yang statis dan repetitif. Morgan juga memperkenalkan konsep holografik dalam mendesain organisasi modern. Holografi menyiratkan bahwa visi dan kecerdasan keseluruhan dikodekan di setiap bagian. Ini memungkinkan adanya kecerdasan terdistribusi dan redundansi fungsi yang efektif. Organisasi yang cerdas harus menggabungkan spesialisasi yang kuat dengan desentralisasi penuh. Prinsip desain holografik mencakup requisite variety dan minimum specs. Requisite variety menuntut mekanisme internal harus mencerminkan keragaman lingkungan luar yang kompleks. Minimum specs memastikan karyawan memiliki otonomi yang cukup untuk mengatur pekerjaan mereka sendiri. Penerapan prinsip ini menciptakan "learning organizations" yang adaptif dan dinamis. Organisasi juga dapat dipahami sebagai budaya yang unik dan hidup. Metafora ini berfokus pada nilai, norma, keyakinan, ritual, dan makna bersama yang menuntun kehidupan organisasi. Budaya adalah realitas sosial yang diciptakan, dikomunikasikan, dan dipertahankan bersama-sama. Budaya ini seringkali jauh lebih kuat daripada struktur formal yang didokumentasikan. Contohnya adalah perusahaan Jepang yang sangat menekankan harmoni, komitmen total, dan rasa saling memiliki. Budaya korporat yang kuat dapat menyatukan karyawan dan memberikan panduan yang jelas saat ada ambiguitas. Budaya yang sehat mendorong inovasi dan adaptasi yang berkelanjutan dan organik. Budaya dapat dianggap sebagai DNA organisasi, yang memberikan cetak biru bagi reproduksi diri. Morgan menunjukkan bagaimana budaya terbentuk dari interaksi sehari-hari, termasuk humor, cerita, dan ritual kecil. Memahami budaya membantu manajer menyadari peran mereka sebagai pencipta realitas kolektif. Konsep Enactment of a Shared Reality menjelaskan proses penciptaan ini. Orang-orang "menjalankan" realitas bersama mereka melalui serangkaian tindakan dan interpretasi. Perubahan organisasi harus dimulai dari transformasi citra, asumsi, dan nilai-nilai inti, bukan sekadar mengganti struktur. Meskipun metafora budaya kuat, ia cenderung mengabaikan konflik dan dominasi kekuasaan. Terlalu fokus pada idealisme harmoni dapat menyamarkan isu politik dan kekuasaan yang nyata. Budaya yang terlalu kuat dan homogen justru bisa menjadi "penjara psikis" baru yang menghambat adanya kritik. Metafora politik melihat organisasi sebagai sistem yang didorong oleh kepentingan, konflik, dan kekuasaan. Pandangan ini menggeser fokus dari rasionalitas ideal ke perjuangan nyata untuk alokasi sumber daya. Organisasi adalah arena tempat individu dan kelompok mengejar tujuannya masing-masing. Kekuasaan bersumber dari banyak aspek, bukan hanya wewenang formal yang melekat pada posisi. Ini termasuk kontrol terhadap sumber daya yang langka dan kemampuan untuk menghadapi ketidakpastian. Kekuasaan juga dapat berasal dari aliansi interpersonal dan kontrol terhadap informasi atau pengetahuan. Konflik timbul karena perbedaan kepentingan, baik di tingkat individu maupun fungsional atau subkultur. Morgan membedakan berbagai sistem pemerintahan dalam organisasi, seperti otokrasi (kekuasaan absolut) dan teknokrasi (kekuasaan berdasarkan keahlian). Adanya demokrasi di tempat kerja, seperti serikat pekerja, menunjukkan upaya perimbangan kekuasaan yang terus-menerus. Kekuatan politik selalu ada dalam organisasi, meskipun tidak diakui secara eksplisit oleh manajemen. Memahami politik organisasi memungkinkan manajer untuk bersikap realistis dan strategis. Mereka dapat menganalisis kepentingan (Tugas, Karier, Ekstramural) yang berbeda untuk memprediksi perilaku yang muncul. Dengan demikian, manajemen yang efektif melibatkan negosiasi dan pembangunan koalisi yang strategis. Konflik tidak selalu bersifat disfungsional; ia dapat menjadi katalisator bagi perubahan dan inovasi yang diperlukan. Namun, manajemen harus berhati-hati agar tidak terperangkap dalam permainan kekuasaan yang berlarut-larut dan merusak. Metafora politik mengungkap drama nyata yang sering tersembunyi di balik fasad rasionalitas. Metafora ini adalah yang paling abstrak, melihat organisasi sebagai penjara yang diciptakan oleh pikiran sendiri. Kita sering terperangkap oleh ide, asumsi, dan gambaran mental yang tanpa sadar kita ciptakan. Morgan mengajak kita untuk menggali ranah alam bawah sadar organisasi. Morgan mengutip teori Freud dan Jung dalam konteks ini. Organisasi dapat mewujudkan obsesi bawah sadar terhadap kontrol dan ketertiban yang berlebihan. Kepemimpinan yang otoriter mungkin merefleksikan dinamika keluarga patriarkal yang telah direpresi. Organisasi juga dapat menjadi sarana pencarian keabadian kolektif atau proyeksi ketakutan. Beberapa praktik organisasi, seperti obsesi pertumbuhan yang tidak sehat atau kebutuhan akan warisan, mungkin didorong oleh kecemasan akan kematian. Metafora ini memberikan wawasan mendalam tentang dinamika irasional yang memengaruhi keputusan strategis. Kelemahan metafora ini adalah kecenderungannya untuk mengabaikan faktor eksternal dan terstruktur yang nyata. Fokus yang terlalu kuat pada psikodinamika dapat membuat kritik menjadi nihilistik atau pesimistis. Namun, metafora ini vital untuk memahami mengapa organisasi sulit melakukan perubahan yang rasional. Metafora ini memandang organisasi sebagai pola perubahan yang berkelanjutan, bukan entitas yang statis. Perubahanadalah logika yang tidak terhindarkan, yang membentuk dan mengubah realitas organisasi secara konstan dari waktu ke waktu. Ini secara langsung menantang pandangan linier tentang perencanaan dan kontrol. Morgan memperkenalkan konsep Autopoiesis, di mana organisasi adalah sistem yang memproduksi dan mereproduksi dirinya sendiri secara tertutup. Organisasi cenderung berinteraksi dengan proyeksi diri mereka sendiri, menciptakan narcissism organisasi yang merusak. Mereka seringkali memiliki "identitas" yang menghambat adaptasi dengan dunia luar. Konsep Chaos and Complexity menyoroti perubahan yang bersifat non-linier dan tak terduga. Pergeseran kecil dapat menghasilkan konsekuensi besar yang tak terduga dalam sistem yang sangat kompleks. Organisasi harus belajar untuk mengelola di tengah ketidakpastian, yakni dengan menemukan pola-pola yang muncul di dalam kekacauan. Konsep Dialectical Change menekankan perubahan yang didorong oleh kekuatan yang saling berlawanan (contradiction). Misalnya, ketegangan antara kontrol dan otonomi dapat memicu krisis yang melahirkan struktur baru. Metafora ini menuntut manajer untuk merangkul paradoks yang ada dalam organisasi. Metafora terakhir adalah Instrumen Dominasi, yang secara kritis menyoroti sisi eksploitatif dan manipulatif organisasi. Organisasi besar sering dilihat sebagai alat kekuasaan yang digunakan untuk mencapai kepentingan sekelompok kecil pemodal atau elit. Fokusnya adalah pada dampak negatif di tempat kerja dan masyarakat luas. Morgan mengkritik bagaimana organisasi menggunakan dan mengeksploitasi karyawan. Ini termasuk bahaya kerja, penyakit akibat kerja, dan stres mental yang ditimbulkan oleh ritme kerja yang brutal. Organisasi memperkuat sistem kelas dan kontrol sosial di dalam masyarakat. Peran perusahaan multinasional disoroti sebagai kekuatan global yang dominan. Mereka menggunakan sumber daya dan memengaruhi kebijakan ekonomi global demi keuntungan finansial mereka sendiri. Morgan mempertanyakan etika di balik operasi global yang sering mengorbankan komunitas lokal. Meskipun kuat untuk kritik yang radikal, metafora ini harus digunakan bersama dengan metafora yang lain. Ia cenderung mengabaikan potensi organisasi untuk kebaikan, kolaborasi, dan kemanusiaan. Metafora dominasi merupakan perpanjangan dari metafora politik, tetapi dengan fokus etika dan moral yang lebih tajam. Kekuatan utama buku Morgan terletak pada pluralisme metaforisnya yang kaya. Buku ini memberdayakan pembaca untuk "membaca" organisasi secara mendalam dari berbagai sudut pandang yang berbeda. Tidak ada satu pun lensa yang dapat menangkap keseluruhan kompleksitas organisasi. Manajer yang mahir harus mampu berganti lensa tergantung pada situasi yang dihadapi. Mereka perlu melihat organisasi sebagai mesin, organisme, budaya, otak, dan sistem politik secara simultan. Morgan menyarankan agar kita menggunakan metafora sebagai alat diagnostik yang aktif dan terintegrasi dalam praktik. Tujuan utamanya bukan untuk menemukan teori yang "benar" secara absolut, melainkan untuk melihat organisasi sebagai fenomena yang kaya, kompleks, dan multidimensi. Inilah inti dari kebijaksanaan organisasi modern yang diperlukan saat ini. Kemampuan untuk mengintegrasikan pandangan-pandangan ini adalah kunci untuk memimpin di dunia yang terus berubah dengan cepat.

The way we manage people today is built on ideas from over 100 years ago—ideas designed for factory floors, not modern workplaces. Management was originally created to enforce control, standardize behavior, and ensure compliance. Engagement, empowerment, and innovation? None of those were part of the equation. And yet, many organizations still operate with that outdated playbook, whether they admit it or not. In today's Leadership Spark, I break down how the roots of management are still shaping the way we lead today, and why that must change. From the rigid philosophies of Frederick Taylor and Henry Fayol to the mindless “yes sir” culture revealed in David Marquet's story as a submarine captain, we explore the dangers of blind obedience, outdated control models, and transactional leadership. You'll also hear how even the words we use, such as manager, employee, and work still reflect an antiquated, dehumanizing view of the workplace. Things are changing, and if you want to lead the future, better start rejecting the “slave driver and cog” model now and build cultures based on trust, empowerment, and shared responsibility. ________________ Start your day with the world's top leaders by joining thousands of others at Great Leadership on Substack. Just enter your email: ⁠⁠https://greatleadership.substack.com/

This is the fourth instalment in the series on schooling vs. education. This time I focus on conformity. What is conformity? Is it simply in our nature to conform or is it a learnt trait? Do the schools really play a role in teaching us to conform? What are the dangers of conformity? And what could be the antidote? This is not an exhaustive discussion on the topic of conformity, which is vast, but a conscious attempt to focus our attention on this topic within the context of the State and its hegemonic relationship with society.I owe a debt of gratitude to the channel "Academy of ideas" for their inspiring content that influenced me greatly in the making of this episode. I mention in this episode, among others, Frederick Taylor Gates (grandfather to Bill Gates). Frederick Taylor was a business advisor to John D. Rockefeller and in 1903 he founded the American General Education Board. Gates wrote:“In our dreams, we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our moulding bands. The present education conventions fade from their minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning, or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, editors, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have an ample supply.The task we set before ourselves is very simple as well as a very beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just where they are. So we will organize our children and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way, in the homes, in the shops and on the farm.”If you would like to contact me directly, please write me an email to thecuriouscaseoffreedom@gmail.comIf you're a fan of this show, you're welcome to become a supporting listener by going to my website and clicking the donate button. This podcast is free, and I intend to keep it that way, but your contribution whether big or small helps immensely and is highly appreciated.Presentation and production - Orí HarmelinBumper music - The tallest of Orders by Simon MacHaleCheck out Simon's music on Spotify on Bandcamp and on YoutubeA big thank you to Simon MacHale and Daniel Shafrir for their help and support in creating this content.

BONUS: From Waterfall to Flow—Rethinking Mental Models in Software Delivery With Henrik Mårtensson In this BONUS episode, we explore the origins and persistence of waterfall methodology in software development with management consultant Henrik Mårtensson. Based on an article where he details the history of Waterfall, Henrik explains the historical context of waterfall, challenges the mental models that keep it alive in modern organizations, and offers insights into how systems thinking can transform our approach to software delivery. This conversation is essential for anyone looking to understand why outdated methodologies persist and how to move toward more effective approaches to software development. The True Origins of Waterfall "Waterfall came from the SAGE project, the first large software project in history, where they came up with a methodology based on an economic analysis." Henrik takes us on a fascinating historical journey to uncover the true origins of waterfall methodology. Contrary to popular belief, the waterfall approach wasn't invented by Winston Royce but emerged from the SAGE project in the 1950s. Bennington published the original paper outlining this approach, while it was Bell and Tayer who later named it "waterfall" when referencing Royce's work. Henrik explains how gated process models eventually led to the formalized waterfall methodology and points out that an entire generation of methods existed between waterfall and modern Agile approaches that are often overlooked in the conversation. In this segment we refer to:  The paper titled “Production of Large Computer Programs” by Herbert D. Benington (direct PDF link) Updated and re-published in 1983 in Annals of the History of Computing ( Volume: 5, Issue: 4, Oct.-Dec. 1983) Winston Royce's paper from 1970 that erroneously is given the source of the waterfall term. Direct PDF Link. Bell and Thayer's paper “Software Requirements: Are They Really A Problem?”, that finally “baptized” the waterfall process. Direct PDF link.   Mental Models That Keep Us Stuck "Fredrik Taylor's model of work missed the concept of a system, leading us to equate busyness with productivity." The persistence of waterfall thinking stems from outdated mental models about work and productivity. Henrik highlights how Frederick Taylor's scientific management principles continue to influence software development despite missing the crucial concept of systems thinking. This leads organizations to equate busyness with productivity, as illustrated by Henrik's anecdote about 50 projects assigned to just 70 people. We explore how project management practices often enforce waterfall thinking, and why organizations tend to follow what others do rather than questioning established practices. Henrik emphasizes several critical concepts that are often overlooked: Systems thinking Deming's principles Understanding variation and statistics Psychology of work Epistemology (how we know what we know) In this segment, we refer to:  Frederik Taylor's book “The Principles of Scientific Management” The video explaining why Project Management leads to Coordination Chaos James C. Scott's book, “Seeing Like a State” Queueing theory Little's Law The Estimation Trap "The system architecture was overcomplicated, and the organizational structure followed it, creating a three-minute door unlock that required major architectural changes." Henrik shares a compelling story about a seemingly simple feature—unlocking a door—that was estimated to take three minutes but actually required significant architectural changes due to Conway's Law. This illustrates how organizational structures often mirror system architecture, creating unnecessary complexity that impacts delivery timelines. The anecdote serves as a powerful reminder of how estimation in software development is frequently disconnected from reality when we don't account for systemic constraints and architectural dependencies. In this segment, we refer to Conway's Law, the observation that explicitly called out how system architecture is so often linked to organizational structures. Moving Beyond Waterfall "Understanding queueing theory and Little's Law gives us the tools to rethink flow in software delivery." To move beyond waterfall thinking, Henrik recommends several resources and concepts that can help transform our approach to software development. By understanding queueing theory and Little's Law, teams can better manage workflow and improve delivery predictability. Henrik's article on coordination chaos highlights the importance of addressing organizational complexity, while James C. Scott's book "Seeing Like a State" provides insights into how central planning often fails in complex environments. About Henrik Mårtensson Henrik Mårtensson is a management consultant specializing in strategy, organizational development, and process improvement. He blends Theory of Constraints, Lean, Agile, and Six Sigma to solve complex challenges. A published author and licensed ScrumMaster, Henrik brings sharp systems thinking—and a love of storytelling—to help teams grow and thrive. You can link with Henrik Mårtensson on LinkedIn and connect with Henrik Mårtensson on Twitter.

Emmy Award winning filmmaker Frederick Taylor joins the Morning Show to discuss his recent film The Third Country and his participation in a panel at the West Chester Film Festival last weekend.

This is a special episode, where I introduce the "Big Agile Questions" survey and review some of the questions that you've already submitted! Thank you all who did! You can find the submission form here. Submit your questions, as we will be reviewing these in future episodes! To join 25,341 other Agilists on our Newsletter (˜1 post/week), visit this page, and join. The Power of Asking Better Questions At every major turning point in history, from the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution, progress has begun with asking better questions. The Agile movement itself started with the authors of the Agile Manifesto questioning traditional software development methods. Now, in 2025, with significant changes in the industry including PMI's acquisition of the Agile Alliance, the community faces a crucial moment to shape its future direction through thoughtful inquiry and reflection. "Throughout history, the biggest leaps forward have come from people willing to ask difficult, sometimes even quite challenging, questions." The Future Beyond Agile

Tanya Turner/Salto Systems Salto Systems is a leading global access solutions provider, part of the SALTO WECOSYSTEM. Salto develops pioneering facility access control, identity management, and electronic locking technology that ensures seamless, reliable, and secure experiences. Salto solutions are used in over 40,000 installations with 40 million daily users and has offices in 40 countries […]

Tanya Turner/Salto Systems Salto Systems is a leading global access solutions provider, part of the SALTO WECOSYSTEM. Salto develops pioneering facility access control, identity management, and electronic locking technology that ensures seamless, reliable, and secure experiences. Salto solutions are used in over 40,000 installations with 40 million daily users and has offices in 40 countries […] The post Tanya Turner with Salto Systems and Frederick Taylor with Tomorrow Pictures appeared first on Business RadioX ®.

  Technological Taylorism: How Modern AI is Reshaping the Future of Work In this episode, we delve into the concept of Technological Taylorism and how the advent of AI and automation is restructuring the workforce. We revisit Frederick Taylor's principles of scientific management and examine their relevance in today's job market. The discussion covers the rise in workplace surveillance, the transformation of jobs into piecemeal tasks, and the increasing vulnerability of freelance and middle management roles. The episode also explores the larger implications of AI on job creation, economic growth, and the potential for a technological singularity. Featuring insights from experts like Paul Daugherty and Yossi Sheffi, this thought-provoking discussion questions the future of labor in an efficient, data-driven world. 00:00 Introduction: Technological Taylorism and the Future of Work 00:32 The Legacy of Frederick Taylor's Scientific Management 01:31 Modern Workforce Surveillance and AI 03:04 The Rise of Freelancers and Automation 05:39 Creative Destruction in the Digital Age 08:13 The Future of Work: Concerns and Predictions 10:24 Conclusion: Human + Machine Paradigm   Technological Taylorism: The Automation of Efficiency and the Future of Work The philosopher and media theorist Marshall McLuhan contends that "we shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us", The idea suggests that we create and adapt to technologies. These technologies, in turn, shape our behaviours, perceptions, and ultimately, our societies. This goes for any technology from the stopwatch to the advanced artificial intelligence.  I hope I am wrong... In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Frederick Taylor introduced a management approach that would fundamentally change the industrial world. With tools as basic as a pen, ledger, and stopwatch, Taylor meticulously observed and recorded the activities of factory workers, aiming to enhance efficiency through what he termed "scientific management." This system dissected every action into its basic elements. Taylor's analysis led to the precise timing and reorganization of each task to maximize speed and efficiency. Initially, these changes led to significant productivity gains, but they also stripped workers of their autonomy and sense of craftsmanship. Understandably, Taylorism reduced skilled artisans to interchangeable cogs in a mechanized process. Fast forward to today, and Taylor's shadow looms large over modern workforce management. Today's management practices have evolved to slice jobs into ever-smaller tasks. In 2019, The Wall Street Journal highlighted a significant shift towards workplace surveillance, labelling employees as "workforce data generators." This marked a new phase in management's scientific approach, now armed with AI-driven tools far beyond Taylor's  stopwatch. The COVID-19 pandemic and the shift to remote work turbocharged the use of these surveillance tools. A 2021 study by Gartner revealed that the adoption of technologies like facial recognition among employers had doubled to 60% during the pandemic, with predictions of continued growth. This surge in monitoring tools reflects a crisis-induced rush towards greater control, reminiscent of Taylor's response to perceived inefficiencies. The narrative has been that a surefire way to protect yourself in an age of AI is to have a complex, human job. However, when you really examine any complex job it is just a Gordian knot of simple tasks, tasks that can be cheese sliced apart. Consider, AI-powered project management software that eliminates middle management by automating tasks. Once it has unbundled jobs into tasks, it then assembles freelance teams. While these freelancers initially benefit, the software soon learns from their work, and gradually replaces them too.  Freelancers are increasingly becoming a significant part of the workforce. A 2022 study by Upwork found that 38% of Americans engaged in...

We're marking the 35th anniversary of one of the most seismic events of the 20th century: the fall of the Berlin Wall. We'll find out why it was built, how it fell, and how it brought an end to the Cold War.Joining Patrick Geoghegan is: Prof Patrick Major, Professor of Modern History at the University of Reading; Katja Hoyer, historian, author of ‘Beyond the Wall: East Germany, 1949-1990', and visiting Research Fellow at King's College London; and Frederick Taylor, historian, author of ‘The Berlin Wall: A World Divided, 1961-1989' and a fellow of the Royal Historical Society of Great Britain.

Les origines des ressources humaines remontent à la révolution industrielle, mais cette notion remonte à bien plus loin que cela, avec des origines controversées, y compris dans l'esclavagisme. L'évolution vers le concept de "ressources humaines" est un long processus qui a progressivement émergé au 20e siècle, influencée par des théories comme le taylorisme ( de Frederick Taylor) bien sûr, en passant par le Fordisme, et d'autres évolutions. Bien qu'efficace pour augmenter la production, cette approche a été depuis longtemps pointée du doigt pour sa déshumanisation du travail, mais pas seulement… On observe une tension entre la volonté affichée de bien-être des employés et la persistance de méthodes de gestion orientées sur la performance et le contrôle qui prennent leurs origines dans des évolutions productivistes et utilitaristes, sur fond de bouleversements historiques majeures. Bref, nous remontons l'histoire mouvementée d'un phénomène bien plus complexe qu'il n'y paraît et surtout dans la construction d'une pensée totalement en dehors du vivant et qui a réduit notre Terre en une simple mine de ressources exploitables, mais tragiquement épuisables, elle aussi, comme l'humain.

Summary In this episode, Jimmy Fosdick joins Dave for a conversation about his journey from traditional project management to agile. They discuss the challenges of applying traditional project management to software development, the importance of understanding the context and problem domain when choosing project management approaches, and the misuse of the term 'agile' in the consulting industry. They also touch on the legacy of Frederick Taylor and the need for a people-centered approach in project management. The conversation explores the challenges of traditional project management and the need for a more empirical and agile approach. They discuss the problems with big upfront planning, the importance of shorter cycle times, and the fear of failure. The conversation also touches on the need for more humane workspaces and the changing nature of work. The principal themes include the limitations of traditional project management, the benefits of an empirical approach, and the evolving workforce and work environment. Takeaways • Traditional project management is effective for problems that can be solved on paper upfront, but may not work well for software development. • Agile approaches, such as Scrum, are better suited for software development and other complex, empirical problems. • The term 'agile' has become an overloaded and misused brand in the consulting industry. • Hybrid approaches that combine traditional project management and agile practices can be problematic and may not fully embrace the values and principles of agile. • A people-centered approach is essential in project management, and the focus should be on collaboration, respect, and solving the right problems. Traditional project management relies on upfront planning, which can lead to longer cycle times and higher failure rates. • An empirical approach, such as Agile, allows for shorter cycle times and the ability to adapt and change as needed. • The fear of failure often hinders organizations from embracing more agile and iterative approaches. • There is a growing emphasis on creating more humane workspaces and allowing for more flexibility and creativity in the workplace. • The nature of work is changing, and organizations need to adapt to the expectations and needs of the new generation of workers. Titles • The Misuse of the Term 'Agile' in the Consulting Industry • From Traditional Project Management to Agile: Jimmy Fosik's Journey The Changing Nature of Work • Overcoming the Fear of Failure Chapters 02:20 Introduction and Background 05:52 The Challenges of Traditional Project Management in Software Development 08:33 Differentiating Scrum from Traditional Project Management 12:13 The Misuse of the Term 'Agile' 14:38 The Problem with Hybrid Approaches 22:17 Legacy Code in Our Heads: Shifting the Project Management Paradigm 26:21 The Benefits of an Empirical Approach 28:46 Overcoming the Fear of Failure 33:18 Creating More Humane Workspaces 39:03 The Changing Nature of Work Contacting Jimi - Web: https://fearlessagility.com/ - X: https://x.com/FearlessAgility - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FearlessAgility/ - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/realFearlessAgility/ - Courses on the Scrum Alliance site: https://tinyurl.com/yjc2rtmf Links from Dave's Intro - The Art of War for Collaboration Course http://modusinstitute.com/course/art-of-war-collaboration - Guided Personal Kanban (September 2024) http://modusinstitute.com/course/guided-pk-sep-usa The Agile Network* https://go.theagilenetwork.com/l/web-dprior Use the discount codes below to get either 20% or 2 months of free access 2 Free Months - DRUNKENPM10CM 20% off Annual - DRUNKENPM10C20 Contacting Dave Linktree: https://linktr.ee/mrsungo

Another career changing gardener learning their craft in the most inspiring place imaginable @belmondlemanoir Great chat with Sam such a passionate thoughtful gardener Highlights from the episode

Todd Rose is the co-founder and CEO of  Populace, and founder of the Laboratory for the Science of Individuality. Todd is also a bestselling author of "Collective Illusions," "Dark Horse," and "The End of Average."  Todd explains how the abandonment of human distinctiveness during the industrial age has left a lasting impact on our potential and fulfillment. He emphasizes that true individuality is crucial for cultivating personal potential and living fulfilling lives.  He explores the tension between individualism and collectivism, asserting that individuality should not be mistaken for selfishness. He then shifts to the challenges leaders face in balancing fairness and personalization. Todd highlights the importance of autonomy in realizing individuality and cautions against the authoritarian potential of individuality without autonomy.  Todd expresses concerns about the potential for a divided education system where some students are trained as cogs in the machine while others are nurtured to develop their individuality and agency. Todd talks about his Dark Horse Project, which explores how people achieve fulfillment and excellence by following their unique paths.       Key Takeaways [03:30] Todd discussed why individuality is central to his work and the importance of human distinctiveness and its impact on potential and fulfillment. He also compared standardization to personalization in various fields.  [06:03] Todd emphasizes the impact of the Industrial Age on individuality, psychological drives for categorization versus self-expression, and a critique of Frederick Taylor's scientific management and its effects in relation to societal transformation, human identity, and labor efficiency during the industrial revolution. [07:28] He talks about the importance of personalizing leadership while maintaining fairness, the challenges of balancing individual needs with organizational goals, and the evolving expectations of employees in the workplace. [10:45] He discusses the transformation needed in education and workplace institutions, the shift from material abundance to psychological and spiritual fulfillment, and the role of leaders in navigating paradigm shifts and fostering individuality in the context of adapting to changing societal values and promoting holistic well-being in both educational and professional settings. [14:16] He shares the challenges of giving employees more autonomy while maintaining control, the comparison of bottom-up versus top-down approaches in leadership, and the importance of clear outcomes and flexible processes in modern workplaces in relation to fostering innovation, productivity, and employee satisfaction within organizational structures. [26:47] Todd gives an example of personalized health utilizing the glycemic index and machine learning. He also shares his personal experience with personalized nutrition, highlighting the potential of technology to scale personalization in various fields by leveraging data-driven approaches to optimize individual health outcomes and enhance personalized experiences across different domains. [35:32] He introduces his book “The Dark Horse project and book”, emphasizing the transformation of individuality into fulfillment and excellence. He also shares his personal anecdotes, highlighting the impact of the Dark Horse mindset on Todd's family and their journey towards embracing uniqueness and achieving personal success. [41:57] Closing quote: Remember, "If a man is not faithful to his own individuality, he cannot be loyal to anything." - Claude McKay   Quotable Quotes "The biggest mistake we've made in the industrial age is the abandonment of the appreciation for human distinctiveness." "Harnessing your individuality is a pretty central element to really leading a fulfilling life." "The flaw with the industrial age is that in the past, it was sort of intuitive that we were categorized in the same way that we thought it was intuitive that the earth was flat." "Whereas like a Frederick Taylor, we led to a very paternalistic society that we've lived in for quite a while, which is in some ways antithetical to liberal democracies." "The biggest driver of a sense of meaning is pursuing a goal freely chosen." "It's very hard to transform institutions that are captured." "Innovation in terms of being left behind is really important." "We can get scale through personalization." "Individuality is a fact, and it's really important." "If a man is not faithful to his own individuality, he cannot be loyal to anything." - Claude McKay   These are the books mentioned in our discussion with Todd   Resources Mentioned The Leadership Podcast | Sponsored by | Rafti Advisors. LLC | Self-Reliant Leadership. LLC | Todd Rose LinkedIn | Todd Rose Website | Todd Rose Twitter |  

You've heard of Mike Bloomberg; those longer in years might remember Tom Steyer; deep readers of Capital Research Center might remember Fred Stanback; the billionaire environmentalist donor is a repeating figure. But you've probably not heard of C. Frederick Taylor, a reclusive California billionaire who drives millions to the environmentalist movement. Joining us to discuss Taylor, […]

You've heard of Mike Bloomberg; those longer in years might remember Tom Steyer; deep readers of Capital Research Center might remember Fred Stanback; the billionaire environmentalist donor is a repeating figure. But you've probably not heard of C. Frederick Taylor, a reclusive California billionaire who drives millions to the environmentalist movement. Joining us to discuss Taylor, his Sequoia Climate Foundation, and the effect he's having on environmental policy is our Capital Research colleague Ken Braun. Links: The Sequoia Climate Foundation: The “Secretive U.S. Vulture Fund”The Sequoia Climate Foundation: Following Fred's MoneyThe Sequoia Climate Foundation: Funding of Anti-Energy RadicalsThe Sequoia Climate Foundation: Climate ColonialismThe Progressive International: MembersC. Frederick TaylorFollow us on our socials: Twitter: @capitalresearchInstagram: @capitalresearchcenterFacebook: www.facebook.com/capitalresearchcenterYouTube: @capitalresearchcenter

It's November in Germany, so you know that there's History afoot. Join Jonny Whitlam and Pip Roper as we discuss some of the context leading up to the November Revolution, (29th October-9th November) and try to detangle the confusion of those in the thick of it. Kaiser Wilhelm II doesn't know when to leave the party, Rosa Luxemburg's fresh out of prison and she told you this war was a bad idea all along, and there's a town full of sailor's who aren't that keen on pointlessly dying actually. Join us as we, and they, try to navigate a forced abdication, end of an Empire and beginning of a whole new and turbulent world. You can can in touch and book Jonny or Pip for a tour of Berlin via www.whitlams-berlin-tours.com. Don't forget to subscribe for more Berlin history every two weeks!Mixed and Produced by Alex Griffithshttps://www.instagram.com/alexgriffiths_music/https://alexgriffiths.bandcamp.com/Sources:'The Weimar Years' by Frank McDonough'The Downfall of Money' by Frederick Taylor

THIS WEEK! We take a look at The Berlin Wall. From the Soviet Invation in 1945 To Soviet Western relations. To the escapees to the west, and the building of The Berlin Wall. And what was it like to live in the East German Regime during The Cold War, and what was the aftermath of the collapse to a transition from Comunism to Capitalism for the Eastern Germans like? Find Out This Week On "Well That Aged Well", with "Erlend HedegartSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/well-that-aged-well. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Wrong Boys discuss the soulless hierarchal theories of Frederick Taylor and his influence on evolution of the workplace. full episode here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/303-taylorism-96698428 Theme Song by alman the man:https://open.spotify.com/artist/0phmPAQKm91ez7HJPTUEZ1

Experience the transformation of leadership and management with us as we trace the lineage of these concepts from the divine right of kings to the nuanced interplay of today's corporate strategies. With the guidance of time-traveler George and insights from Dr. Harold Langlois, we dissect the evolution of command and control, scrutinizing the legacy of figures like Frederick Taylor and the impact of scientific management on our modern workplace. Delve into the fabric of management theory and unearth the significance of adapting to the living organisms that are our organizations, beyond just solving problems with pre-packaged solutions.We challenge the very notion of control, and question if the traditional hierarchy still serves us in a world that resembles a jazz ensemble more than a rigid orchestra. The shift from certainty to adaptability is at the core of our discussion, encouraging leaders to embrace the unexpected with the same finesse as improvisational musicians. Join us as we reimagine leadership not as a solitary command but as a collective symphony, where every member plays a critical role in harmonizing the complexities of today's dynamic business environment.Harold Langlois [Guest] has been working with decision makers in the financial sector for 25 years. As a professor teaching management at Harvard University, Division of Continuing Education, Harold continues to inspire graduate students in the areas of Change, Leadership, and Team Challenges, and in 2002 was the recipient of the Joanne Fussa Award for Outstanding Teaching. Known for his dynamic and motivating presentations, Harold has been a featured speaker at national and international conferences, and is recognized as a thought leader utilizing research on neurobiology, leadership, and communication to enhance skill sets for today's decision makers. Travis C. Mallett [Host],  is  a Masters of Liberal Arts (ALM) candidate at Harvard University Extension School, where he has also earned Professional Graduate Certificates in both Organizational Behavior and Strategic Management. Travis previously received undergraduate degrees in Electrical Engineering, General Mathematics, and Music from Washington State University. He also served as an Engineering Manager at Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, where he led a team responsible for developing and maintaining SEL's highest-selling product line. An innovative force in engineering, Travis holds numerous patents and has authored papers and books across diverse subjects. His passion for continuous learning and organizational excellence propels him to explore and illuminate the intricacies of management theories. Through his podcast, "The Management Theory Toolbox", he offers valuable insights on effective leadership, business innovation, and strategic methodologies.Want to dive in even deeper? Visit the full show notes for this episode.

Our society has become so obsessed with measurement that even leisure, reading, wellbeing and healthy living have become a topic for efficiency. Many of us live and die without experiencing a life outside of efficiency and measurement. Take for instance the case of the father of scientific management Frederick Taylor. Even on his deathbed, Taylor was seen winding a stopwatch. What a paradox that we won't let go of measurement even when there is no time left to live?   But things are not that straightforward. How do we explain the countless time sitting on the couch browsing through social media without purpose or meaning? How do we explain investments in weapons of mass destruction? Clearly these are issues that cannot always be understood through the lenses of efficiency. In this podcast, Rob Long and I discuss the meaning of Technique as an ideology (or a worldview) that has come to dominate our lives. The ideology of Technique comes from the work of the French philosopher Jacques Ellul but was also discussed in the work of Heidegger and other philosophers.   We hope this podcast will make you think, reflect and live a more fulfilling life.

"Fashion is the only venue that we have that is sort of resilient to … these other types of agendas that orbit around us in society ... you can do anything and you can do everything and you can be exactly who you want." - Frederick Taylor In this episode of the Tactical Leader Podcast, host KC Sullivan has an engaging conversation with Emmy award winning filmmaker Frederick Taylor about how fashion, film and pop culture shape our self-image and culture. They discuss the power of authentic self-expression through style and using clothes to intentionally project confidence. Frederick shares how fashion allows people to belong and feel represented. If you want to learn more about how fashion and film have shaped our culture, and how we can use this to improve our self-confidence, this is the episode for you![00:00 - 04:08] Frederick's BackgroundGrew up protecting others, believing in equityRealized the industry he was in didn't align with his desire to create impactful work[04:09 - 17:58] Being Yourself and Using Fashion to Build IdentityDon't get caught chasing superficial goalsFocus on believing in your abilities and serving othersFashion builds identity and pathways to become your best selfIt helps you belong and feel empowered[17:59 - 38:21] Intentional Style and Diverse RepresentationStyle is how you utilize fashionBe intentional about the message your style projectsBenetton's diverse ads were groundbreakingRepresentation matters[38:22 - 53:07] Enjoying Self-Expression and Teaching Next GenerationsEnjoy and document your fashion journeyTrends fade, but self-belief lastsTeach youth when self-expression needs to align with appropriatenessGuide them to stay grounded in themselvesKey Quotes:"When you … fall on your face, you make mistakes … you have your scrapes, that's okay. You're not in this game to try to be perfect. You're in this game to try to be you." - Frederick Taylor Connect with Frederick Taylor:Instagram: @fr3der1ckDid you love the value that we are putting out in the show?LEAVE A REVIEW and tell us what you think about the episode so we can continue putting out great content just for you!Share this episode and help someone who wants to expand their leadership capacity or click here to listen to our previous episodes.The Tactical Leader is powered by Advancing the Line for Veterans, a 501c3 supporting veteran entrepreneurship. If you or someone you know is passionate about supporting the veteran community, please head over to ATLVets.org and get involved!If you want to learn how to build a better business, you can connect with me at ZackAKnight.com. You can connect with us on LinkedIn, Instagram, or join Our BATL Space and become part of the community.

You don't need a three-day offsite in the woods to improve your team's performance. It's much easier (and more effective) to bake debrief meetings into your team meeting rhythms so you can learn and grow from setbacks and successes. This episode covers an easy process you can use to start building a learning team.

Text Hawk to 66866 to become part of "Mindful Monday." Join 10's of thousands of your fellow learning leaders and receive a carefully curated email from me each Monday morning to help you start your week off right... Full show notes at www.LearningLeader.com Twitter/IG: @RyanHawk12   https://twitter.com/RyanHawk12 Seth Godin is the author of 20 international bestsellers that have changed the way people think about marketing, leadership, and work. His blog (which you can find by typing "seth" into Google) is the most viewed marketing blog in the world. Some of my favorite books of his are… Tribes, Linchpin, Purple Cow, and most recently The Song of Significance. Notes: Hiring Leaders — when deciding who to hire for a leadership role: look at the careers of the people who have worked for them. And look at the careers of the people they've led. Leaders aren't managers with fancy titles. Leaders are planting the seeds for generations of impact to come. Let's get real or let's not play. Tension is what we seek. It's important to show up early. Frederick Taylor met Henry Ford and management was created. Study bees - They leave their home and have 72 hours to find their next one. Matt Mullenweg (Automatic CEO) - "Create the conditions for forward motion." To create the environment for the people they're leading to flourish. How are you intentionally creating the environment for the people you're leading to do their best work? Management doesn't just exist. It was invented. When you race to the bottom, You see people as resources, not as people. (I don't like the term human capital management) When Paul Orfalea was building kinkos (which he later sold to fed ex for $2B), he said his best technique for growing the business was simple. He would walk into their stores and ask someone there to tell him about an innovation they've recently made. And then he'd tell all the other stores about it… “Real value is no longer created by traditional measures of productivity. It's created by personal interactions, innovation, creative solutions, resilience, and the power of speed.”

In 2019, approaching the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, I found a timely book in a secondhand bookshop: The Berlin Wall, 13 August 1961 – 9 November 1989 by Frederick Taylor. The book inspired me to write about my two contrasting visits to Berlin as a backpacker in 1987 and 1995.Two Visits to the Berlin Wall is a travel memoir from the Tall And True writers' website, written and narrated by Robert Fairhead.Read the piece on Tall And True: https://www.tallandtrue.com.au/nonfiction/travel/two-visits-to-the-berlin-wallPodcast website: https://www.tallandtrueshortreads.comSupport the podcast: https://supporter.acast.com/tall-and-true-short-readsBuy Robert's short story collections online:• Amazon Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/Robert-Fairhead/e/B086HZ36NM• Rakuten Kobo: https://www.kobo.com/au/en/author/robert-fairheadPodcast Theme and Sound EffectsRoyalty-free music from Pixabay.com: Beethoven Piano Sonata No. 15 in D major, Op. 28 'Pastorale' – IV. Rondo. Allegro ma non-Troppo, performed by Karine Gilanyan.Sound effects licensed under Creative Commons 0 from FreeSound.org:• Shop Bell: https://freesound.org/people/775noise/sounds/494565/• Gunfire: https://freesound.org/people/C-V/sounds/523404/• Ping Sound: https://freesound.org/people/edsward/sounds/341871/• Plane: https://freesound.org/people/bigpickle51/sounds/262753/• Clock Ticking: https://freesound.org/people/Julien%20Matthey/sounds/457651/• Van Horn: https://freesound.org/people/craigsmith/sounds/479995/• City Ambience (Cologne): https://freesound.org/people/Pfannkuchn/sounds/384353/• Siren: https://freesound.org/people/lluiset7/sounds/367442/ Production NotesTall And True Short Reads is produced using Audacity. Episodes are recorded in Sydney, Australia, on the traditional lands of the Gadigal People of the Eora Nation.Acast Podcast Supporter PageSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/tall-and-true-short-reads. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Augmented reveals the stories behind the new era of industrial operations, where technology will restore the agility of frontline workers. In this episode of the podcast, the topic is "Post Lean." Our guest is Frode Odegaard, Chairman and CEO at the Post-Industrial Institute (https://post-industrial.institute/). In this conversation, we talk about the post-industrial enterprise going beyond digital and higher-order organizations. If you like this show, subscribe at augmentedpodcast.co (https://www.augmentedpodcast.co/). If you like this episode, you might also like Episode 102 on Lean Manufacturing with Michel Baudin (https://www.augmentedpodcast.co/102). Augmented is a podcast for industry leaders, process engineers, and shop floor operators, hosted by futurist Trond Arne Undheim (https://trondundheim.com/) and presented by Tulip (https://tulip.co/). Follow the podcast on Twitter (https://twitter.com/AugmentedPod) or LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/75424477/). Trond's Takeaway: Lean is a fundamental perspective on human organizations, but clearly, there were things not foreseen in the lean paradigm, both in terms of human and in terms of machine behavior. What are those things? How do they evolve? We have to start speculating now; otherwise, we will be unprepared for the future. One of the true questions is job stability. Will the assumptions made by early factory jobs ever become true again? And if not, how do you retain motivation in a workforce that's transient? Will future organizational forms perfect this task? Transcript: TROND: Welcome to another episode of the Augmented Podcast. Augmented brings industrial conversations that matter, serving up the most relevant conversations on industrial tech. Our vision is a world where technology will restore the agility of frontline workers. In this episode of the podcast, the topic is Post Lean. Our guest is Frode Odegard, Chairman and CEO at the Post-Industrial Institute. In this conversation, we talk about the post-industrial enterprise going beyond digital and higher-order organizations. Augmented is a podcast for industrial leaders, process engineers, and for shop floor operators hosted by futurist Trond Arne Undheim and presented by Tulip. Frode, welcome to Augmented. How are you? FRODE: Pretty good. TROND: Yeah. Well, look, talking to Norwegians living abroad that's become a sport of mine. You were born in Norway, software design from there, became an entrepreneur, moved to Silicon Valley. I also know you have an Aikido black belt; we talked about this. This could have become its own podcast, right? There's a long story here. FRODE: [laughs] Absolutely, yeah. TROND: But you're also the CEO of the Post-Industrial Institute, which I guess used to be called the Post-Lean Institute. But in any case, there's a big connection here to lean, which is a global community for leaders that are driving transition towards something post-lean, post-industrial, post-something. So with that context, tell me a little about your background and how you ended up doing what you're doing. FRODE: Born in Norway, as you pointed out. My folks had a process control company, so that was kind of the industry I was born into was industrial controls, which included visiting factories as a child and installing process control systems. So I was doing, you know, circuit board assembly at age eight because when you grow up in a family business, that's what you get to do. And I quickly gravitated towards software. I think I was 13 when I was working on my first compiler. So my first passion was really programming and language, design, implementation, and that sort of got me interested in theoretical computer science. So very far from what I do today, in some ways, but I think theoretical computer science, especially as a software architecture and all that, teaches you how to think and sort of connect the dots, and that's a good life skill. At 17, I started a software company in high school. And when I was 22, I immigrated to the United States after some trips here. I was on a Standards Committee. I was on the Sun User Group board of directors as a European representative. It was a weird story in itself, how that happened. So yeah, 1990, 1991, I'm in Silicon Valley. TROND: So you jumped ship, essentially. Because, I mean, I've heard a lot of people who come to the U.S. and are inspired, but you just basically jumped off the airplane. FRODE: Yeah, I like to say I was here as an entrepreneurial refugee. Things are different now in Norway, but for a long time, they had strange taxation rules, and very difficult to start companies and scale them. But also, they didn't really have the fancy French word. They didn't really have the milieu. They didn't have a community of people trying to build companies in tech. So tech was very much focused on either military applications, that was its own little industry and community, or the energy industry, the oil industry in particular. TROND: All of that seems to have changed quite a bit. I mean, not that you or I, I guess, are experts on that. As ex-pats, we're outside, so we're looking in, which is a whole other story, I guess. But I'm curious about one more thing in your background so Aikido, which, to me, is endlessly fascinating, perhaps because I only ever attended one Aikido training and, for some reason, decided I wasn't going to do it that year, and then I didn't get back to it. But the little I understand of Aikido it has this very interesting principle of using the opponent's force instead of attacking. That's at least what some people conceptualize around it. But you told me something different. You said there are several schools of Aikido, and one of them is slightly more aggressive, and you belong to that school. I found that quite interesting. FRODE: [laughs] Now I'm wondering about my own depiction of this, but the Aikido that I study is known as Iwama-style Aikido, and it's called that because there was an old town in Japan, which has been absorbed by a neighboring city now, but it was called Iwama, and that's where the founder of Aikido moved during the Second World War, and that's where he sort of completed the art. And that's a long technical story, but he included a fairly large weapons curriculum as well. So it's not just unarmed techniques; it's sword-knife stuff. And it's a really beautiful art in that all of the movements with or without weapons are the same, like, they will follow the same principles. In terms of not attacking, of course, on a philosophical level, it calls itself the art of peace. In a practical sense, you can use it offensively to, for example, if you have someone who is grabbing your child or something like that, this person is not attacking you, but you have to step in and address the situation, and you can use it offensively for sure. TROND: Very interesting. I was going to jump straight to what you're up to now, then, which is, I guess, charting this path towards a different kind of industrial enterprise. And you said that you earlier called your efforts post-lean, and now you're calling them post-industrial. It's this continuity in industry, Frode. Tell me a little bit more about that. FRODE: I think a good way to think about approaches to management and understanding the world around us is that various management practices, and philosophies, and ideas, and so on, have been developed in response to circumstances that were there at the time. So if you think about Frederick Taylor and the problems that he was trying to solve, they initially had a lot to do with just getting work organized and standardized. And then, in 1930s, you start seeing the use of statistical methods. Then you start seeing more of an interest in the psychology of work and so on. And lean kind of melts all of these things together. A great contribution from Toyota is you have a socio-technical system and organizational design where you have a new kind of culture that emphasizes continuous learning, continuous problem solving using some of these ideas and tools that were developed much earlier. Now, in the post-war years, what we see is information technology making business more scalable, also contributing to complexity, but certainly making large companies more scalable than they would have been otherwise. And what we see in the mid-1990s leading up to the mid-2000s is the commercial internet, and then we get smartphones. That's the beginning of a new kind of industrial landscape. And what we see then is instead of an increasing tendency towards centralization in firms and business models, you start seeing this decoupling and decentralization. And what I discovered was that's actually a new thing for the human species. Ever since the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago and then cities in the Bronze Age a little over 5,000 years ago, and then the industrial revolutions, we've seen a culmination of improved mastery of the world, adapting the world to our needs, which is technology and increasing centralization. You had to move to where the work was, and now we're sort of coming out of the pandemic (Let's hope it doesn't come back.) that has accelerated in the pandemic, so you have this decentralization, decoupling. And this continuity and the way I started using the term post-lean, and we can jump back and forth as you'd like, it was just because a lot of the assumptions behind the lean practices and how those practices were implemented were based on the idea that you had organizations that lasted a long time. You had long employee tenures. You had a certain kind of a...I don't like this term, but a social contract between the firm and workers and managers and workers. And they would come and do their work on-site in person at the factory, and this world is kind of disappearing now. And so there's all of this work now being done. I think manufacturing labor forces peaked at a third of the workforce some decades ago. But now it's down to about 11%, even though manufacturing as a share of the economy has remained fairly constant since the 1940s. It's gotten more productive. So there are also all these new jobs that have been created with people doing different kinds of work, and much of that work is knowledge work. And a lot of these industrial-era management practices and ideas have to be changed for knowledge work. And so that was sort of my initial discovery. That happened in the early 2000s. I started a company in 2004, which was called initially Lean Software Institute. I wanted to basically take these ideas and adapt them to software development. And that was generalized for knowledge work in general. And because we have big clients like Lockheed Martin in the aerospace defense sector, we rebranded the company to the Lean Systems Institute. And so for ten years, myself and a small team, we did organizational redesign work looking at not just workflow but also a bunch of these other factors, which we can talk about, that you have to take into consideration like knowledge management and so on. And then it was about 2014, 2015, when I discovered, hey, even though we kind of extended lean to look at all these other things, there's this decentralization happening. And maybe we should fundamentally revisit what firms should look like and how the external landscape outside the organization changes the way we think about designing companies. TROND: Yeah. I found it interesting, obviously, that you started from the software angle. And you told me earlier that, in some ways, your kind of Lean efforts are almost in parallel to, I guess, what could be called the lean movement, although there's such a variety of lean practitioners out there. They're obviously not all in the manufacturing industry. That's the whole point. Toyota managed to inspire a whole host of other companies that had nothing to do with automotive and nothing to do even with any kind of basic manufacturing. And I guess the software industry is no different; you know, the industry as such was inspired by it. And as you said, Lockheed Martin, and perhaps not only for their manufacturing side, were inspired by it when running their software or other types of maybe even office-based knowledge work. So as you're coming to these realizations, what sorts of things is it that you then start to think about that are the same and that are different in terms of the classic assumptions of lean, as you know, reducing waste or improving a process in a specific way with all the assumptions, so stable labor force like you said. FRODE: In that initial period from 2004 to 2014, that's when I really worked on adapting lean to knowledge work. And so you could see some people were trying to reduce knowledge work to kind of a simplified version of itself. They were trying...and so I call that the reductionist approach where they then could count documents as inventory, and they could have a Kanban system and all of that. And the agile movement in software became very enthused about doing just that. And I think what we did was we went the opposite route, so we took an expansionist approach. So we said, well, we got to keep adding practices and models to the original lean to deal with not just the value stream architecture of an organization but also its structure, so organization architecture, how it manages information, and the shape of that information, where it's stored, and how it's designed. And it's also that's information architecture. And, of course, what we know from wonderful people like Melvin Conway, who discovered that there's a direct relationship between your technology architecture and the shape of the organization, is we really need to also take into consideration what we then called product architecture. Because if your product architecture, and your organization architecture, and your workflow, your value stream architecture is mismatched in product development as well as in manufacturing, that leads to huge misalignment. And that's a cause of massive inventory problems and so on. And then the last of the five dimensions that we have in this model, which we call the lean systems framework, was a way to look at an organization's culture. So there are values that you explicitly promote, so we call them the organizational ideals. And then you have the actual behaviors that don't always live up to the ideals. And then you have people's beliefs about the past, the present, and the future, so we call all of that social architecture. And I think the last bit of work we did in this model, which is a pretty rich model or a metamodel of organizations, is we added the way to look at leadership styles and leadership effectiveness as a function of character and competence of perceived effectiveness. So this was used in a bunch of mostly large organizations over a period of 10 years, and Lockheed was able to get a 72, 73 production in lead time, largest subcontractor in the Future Combat Systems. I think that's the biggest defense project in the history of the United States. [laughs] It was canceled by Congress in the end, but yeah, they got some great results. And a lot of that was because workflow bottlenecks were caused by these other problems in these other four dimensions that had to be addressed, so that was kind of our initial realization. And then there's that big break where we look at decentralization, and how is that causing us to revisit the assumptions about organizational design? So it's not like we get new dimensions of organizational design as much as starting to think about what's the ideal design. And those answers turn out to be very different than they have been up till now. TROND: So that's interesting. So both...you were kind of discovering some...maybe not weaknesses, just, you know, some social change that was happening that is affecting organizations nowadays, you know, in America or anywhere else trying to implement lean principles. But also, what you were saying about the agile movement and what's happening in software industrial organizations that it doesn't reflect what needs to be happening in industries across the board and perhaps not even in their own organizations because it is, I guess, if I paraphrase you a little bit, the agile principles they are very valid for achieving a very smooth software development process. But they're not so valid for a lot of other aspects having to do with social and organizational phenomena that you also need to take into account eventually. So, I mean, if that's correct, it's interesting, right? Because everybody obviously focuses on what they are doing. So the agilists, I guess, they're optimizing a software development process. The lean folks, the classic lean folks, are optimizing a production line. But today's knowledge work is, I guess, over these years also, Frode, it has changed a bit. FRODE: It has changed, and there is more machine systems, software systems. We have more tools, although we're still in the early stages of what's going to come with the use of AI to make knowledge work more productive and so on. But I think one thing that's important, because I don't want to throw anyone under the bus here, is practitioners. There's a lot to be learned from practitioners. Often, they're kind of apologetic, "Oh, I'm not doing the pure X, Y, Z method. We have to adapt it a little bit." Well, guess what? That's what Toyota did. And so what happened is a lot of western companies they were just trying to copy what Toyota did without understanding why those things work there. And it's when you can adopt it, so that's also sort of martial arts. -- TROND: That's actually a fantastic point, Frode, because if you're very, very diehard lean, some people would say, "Well, lean is whatever Toyota does." But on the other hand, for Toyota, lean is whatever Toyota does, right? And it seems to have worked for them. That does not even mean that Toyota would tell you to do exactly what they are doing because they will tell you what makes sense for your organization. In a nutshell, that seems to be – FRODE: And I was there. I mean, I was, you know, I remember one time I was really thinking about standardizing work. And I was reading about the history of all this and reading about Frederick Taylor and the very early days of all of this. And I was coming up with a checklist for housework. I was trying to implement standard work for housework. And guess what? It didn't really work. My girlfriend was upset. [laughter] TROND: Implementing standards for housework. I like it. FRODE: Yeah. I mean, if you see something that needs to be cleaned, just clean it. I was like, "No, no, we need a checklist. We need your exit and entry conditions." [laughter] TROND: You should work at ISS, you know, the big cleaning professionals company. FRODE: There you go. And people have done that, right? But I like to tell this joke about how do you know the difference between a terrorist and a methodologist? And the answer is you can negotiate with a terrorist. TROND: Yeah, that's right. FRODE: So the methodologist believes that his or her methodology is the answer to all things. And so what we were trying to do with the Lean Systems Framework was not to say, "Ah, you know, all this lean stuff is invalid." We were trying to say, "Well, the methods that they had and the practices that they had that were available to us via the literature...because we never went to visit Toyota. We talked to a bunch of companies that were doing a lot of these things, and we were familiar with the literature. But we realized there's a whole bunch of other things that are not being addressed, so we have to add those. And that's why I called it the expansionist approach as opposed to the folks taking the reductionist approach, which is we have to shoehorn everything into making it look like manufacturing. But, you know, product development is not manufacturing. And Toyota's product development practices look nothing like their manufacturing processes. It's completely different. And that's a much less well-known area of lean...although the Lean Enterprise Institute has published good stuff on this book. Lean product development is completely different from lean production. And that was not as well-known and certainly not known by the people in the agile world. Our attitude was always, well, the circumstances change or even from one company to another, the tools might have to change. And so the skill you want to develop in our case as researchers, and advisors, and teachers, or in the case of practitioners, as leaders, or implementers, is keep learning about what other people are doing and what works for them and try to understand what the deeper principles are that you then use to construct a solution that's appropriate for that situation. That's really all it is. TROND: That's fabulous. So tell me then, apart from Lockheed Martin, what are some of the other organizations that you've worked with? How have they thought about these things? I mean, how does your community work? Is it essentially, I mean, before COVID at least, you met, and you discuss these things, and you sort of reflect on how they show up in your organizations and discuss best practices. Or do you kind of write papers together? How does this knowledge evolve in your approach? FRODE: It's important to point out here, like in the history of the company, which has been around now for (I'm feeling old.) 18 years, so after the first ten years, there was a big break because that's when we started working on okay, well, what comes after even the expansionist version of lean that we were doing, which was called the Lean Systems Framework? And that's when we started working on all of this post-lean stuff. And so the companies we worked with in the first decade were the likes of AT&T, and Sony, and Lockheed, and Honeywell, and mostly large companies, a few smaller ones too. But they had a lot of problems with complexity. And often, they were doing a combination of hardware and software. And they were in industries that had a lot of complexity. So in 2014, 2015, there was a big shift where I'd spent about six months to a year reading, talking to a bunch of people, trying to come up with what was going to be the next new thing. And that was kind of the journey for me as a founder as well because I felt like I'd done all this organizational redesign work, soup to nuts. And it wasn't just Kaizen. We did Kaikaku, which is much less known in the lean world, and that's radical redesign, basically. And we did this working on a board C-level with a lot of companies. TROND: Tell me more about Kaikaku. Because, like you said, it's not a vernacular that's really well-known outside of the inner circle of lean, I guess. FRODE: Yeah. So Kaikaku is where you look at an organization, and basically, instead of thinking about how do we put in mechanisms to start improving it incrementally, you say, "Well, there's so much low-hanging fruit here. And there's a breakthrough needed in a very short time. And we're just going to put together a design team, basically, a joint design team, and essentially redesign the whole thing and implement it. So it is a radical redesign. It hasn't been; at least, at the time we were doing it, there were not a lot of details available in the literature. And you heard stories like Ohno-san would walk into a factory and just say, "Well, this is completely unacceptable. Move this machine over here, and this machine over here. And can't you guys see..." So we didn't do it that way. We didn't tell the clients what the answer should be. We taught them. We had the executive spend a week with us learning about the Lean Systems Framework, and they mapped out the organization they had. And then, basically, we facilitated them through a process that could take sometimes a few weeks designing the organization the way it should be. And then there was an implementation project, and they put it in place, so... TROND: But Kaikaku basically is a bit more drastic than Kaizen. FRODE: Very much so. TROND: Yeah. So it's like a discontinuous sort of break. It's not necessarily that you tell people to do things differently, but you make it clear that things have to be different maybe in your own way. But you're certainly not going for continuous improvement without any kind of disruption. There will be disruption in Kaikaku. FRODE: I mean, it is disruption. And if you think of the Fremont Factory Toyota took over, that was a reboot. [laughs] And so now -- TROND: Right. So it's almost as if that's where you can use the software analogy because you're essentially rebooting a system. And rebooting, of course, you sometimes you're still stuck with the same system, but you are rebooting it. So you're presumably getting the original characteristics back. FRODE: So I think of it as sort of a reconfiguration. And in the case of the Fremont factory, of course, there were a bunch of people who were there before who were hired back but also some that weren't that we tend now to avoid just because the knowledge people had was valuable. And in most cases, the issue wasn't that people were malicious or completely incompetent. It was just that the design of the organization was just so wrong in so many ways. [laughs] And what we had to do, it was more of a gradual reboot in the sense that you had to keep the existing organization running. It had customers. It had obligations. And so it wasn't a shutdown of the factory, the proverbial factory, it wasn't that. But yeah, after I started looking at the effects of decentralization and starting to question these assumptions behind lean practices the way they had appeared in the mainstream, that was around the time, early 2015, I started to use the term post-lean. It wasn't because I thought I had all the answers yet or certainly, and still, I don't think I do. But it was clear that there was an inheritance from lean thinking in terms of engaging people in the organization to do things better. But the definition of better I thought would change, and the methods I thought would change. And the assumptions behind the methods, such as long-lasting organizations, long employee tenures, tight coupling between people in organizations, organizations taking a long time to grow to a large size, and human problem solving, which already was being eaten by software back then or elevated, I should say, by software, all of these assumptions needed to be revisited so... TROND: They did. But I have to say, what a gutsy kind of concept to call it post-lean. I mean, I co-wrote a book this year, and we're calling things Augmented Lean for the specific reason maybe that we actually agree with you that there are some things of lean that are really still relevant but also because it takes an enormous confidence, almost a hubris, to announce something post a very, very successful management principle. FRODE: It was the theoretical computer scientist in me. TROND: [laughs] FRODE: So I thought that surely from first principles, we could figure this out and not that it would be the same answer in every situation. But I think it was also, at that point, we had a decade of field experience behind us in doing customized organizational redesign with clients in many different industries. So we knew already that the answer wasn't going to be the same every time. And in a lot of the lean Literature, the assumption was that you weren't really going to dramatically change the organizational structure, for example, which we had a lot of experience with doing. And we already had experience with teams of teams, and just-in-time changes, and reconfigurations, and so on because we thought of organizations the way software people think of organizations which are, you know, they're computational objects that have humans, and then there are social, technical objects. And they're reconfigurable. And I think if you grew up in a manufacturing world, the shape of the organization is sort of attached to... there are physical buildings and equipment and all of that. So -- TROND: And this is so essential to discuss, Frode, because you're so right. And that's a real thing. And that's something we write about in our book as well. There is a very real sense that I think, honestly, the whole manufacturing sector but certainly the first automation efforts and, indeed, a lot of the digital efforts that have been implemented in manufacturing they took for granted that we cannot change this fact that we have infrastructure. We have people; we have machines; we have factories; we have shop floors. All of these things are fixed. Now we just got to figure out how to fit the humans in between, which is how they then interpreted waste, being let's reduce the physical waste so that humans can move around. But really, the overall paradigm seems to have been, and you correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to have been that the machines and the infrastructure was given, and the humans were the ones that had to adapt and reduce all this waste. And no one considered for a second that it could be that the machines were actually wasteful themselves [laughs] or put in the wrong place or in the wrong order or sequence or whatever you have. But with other types of organizations, this is obviously much easier to see it and much easier to change, I mean, also. FRODE: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And software is an example of this because now we take for granted that a large percentage of the population works from home and don't want to go back. But if you are part of that 10%, 11% of the population working in a factory and you have to show up at the factory because that's where the machine is that goes ding, that, you know, [laughs] it's not work that requires only a low level of education of course. That hasn't been the case for a while. And these are people with master's degrees. And they're making sure all of this equipment runs. This is fancy equipment. So what we learned in that 10-year period was this is not just about workflow. It's a five-dimensional model, so there's workflow, organization structure, and knowledge management, the technology, architecture, the product you're making, and the culture. And all of these are five axes if you will, So 5D coordinate system and you can reconfigure. You can make organizations into anything you want. Now, the right answer might be different in different industries at different lifecycle stages of companies. And basically, our thinking was that we weren't going to just teach our clients or even help our clients. We certainly weren't going to just tell them the answer because I always thought that was a terrible idea. We were going to help them redesign themselves for their emerging landscape, their emerging situation, but also help them think about things, or learn to think about these things in general, so that if their landscape changed again, or if they merged with another company, then they had the thinking skills, and they understood what these different dimensions were to be able to redesign themselves again. TROND: That makes a lot of sense. FRODE: That's kind of the whole – TROND: I just want to insert here one thing that happened throughout, well, I mean, it was before your time, I guess. But remember, in the '70s, there was this concept among futurists, Toffler, and others that, oh, we are moving into a service economy. Manufacturing the real value now is in services. Well, that was a short-lasting fad, right? I mean, turns out we are still producing things. We're making things, and even the decentralization that you're talking about is not the end of the production economy. You produce, and you are, I mean, human beings produce. FRODE: No, I never thought that we would see the end of manufacturing. And the term post-industrial, he was not the person that coined it, I think. It was coined 10 or 20 years earlier. But there's a book by Daniel Bell, which is called The Coming of Post-industrial Society, where he talks about both the sociological challenges and the changes in the economy moving to a more service-based knowledge-based economy. Of course, what happened is manufacturing itself became more knowledge-based, but that was kind of the whole idea of what Toyota was doing. MID-ROLL AD: In the new book from Wiley, Augmented Lean: A Human-Centric Framework for Managing Frontline Operations, serial startup founder Dr. Natan Linder and futurist podcaster Dr. Trond Arne Undheim deliver an urgent and incisive exploration of when, how, and why to augment your workforce with technology, and how to do it in a way that scales, maintains innovation, and allows the organization to thrive. The key thing is to prioritize humans over machines. Here's what Klaus Schwab, Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, says about the book: "Augmented Lean is an important puzzle piece in the fourth industrial revolution." Find out more on www.augmentedlean.com, and pick up the book in a bookstore near you. TROND: So, Frode, tell me a little bit about the future outlook. What are we looking at here in the lean post-industrial world? What will factories look like? What is knowledge work going to look like? FRODE: Yeah, so I think what we're going to see is that companies that do manufacturing are slowly but surely going to start to look like other kinds of companies or companies that do knowledge work. The content of manufacturing work has become more and more filled with knowledge work already. That's a process that's been going on for decades. As manufacturing technology improves, I think after many, many generations of new technology platforms, we are going to end up in a world where basically any product that you order is going to be either printed atom by atom in your home or in a microfactory, if it's a big bulky thing, in your neighborhood where you can rent capacity in a just-in-time basis. That's not going to happen overnight. This is going to take a few decades. But you can easily see how this kind of mirrors what happened to old chains like Kinko's and so on where if you needed something to be printed, I mean, I remember there were printers. [laughs] And then you had to go to the equivalent of a Kinko's, and you could, you know, if you wanted to print 100 copies of a manual back in the day when we still did that, you could get that done, and that was surely more efficient than doing it at home. And in your home office or at your office, you would have a laser printer. And now we have a $99 inkjet printer, or you just might get it included when you order your laptop, or you may not even care anymore because you have a tablet, and you're just looking at it on the tablet. So there's this phenomenon of some of the things getting smaller and almost disappearing. Now what has happened...this was underway for a while, but the relationship between people and companies has increasingly become more loosely coupled. So a big part of the post-industrial transition is that individuals are empowered, and organizations now become more of a means. They're not institutions that are supposed to last for a long time. I think that ideal is fading. And so they're in a means to an end to produce economic value. And every investor will agree it's just that they're going to be much more reconfigurable, a lot of management work. There's managing resources, tracking progress, tracking inventory, communicating with customers. A lot of that stuff is going to be eaten by software and powered by AI. That doesn't mean people go away. But I think that a lot of the repetitive management administrative work, much more than we can imagine today, will be eaten by software and AIs. TROND: But one of the consequences of that surely, Frode, is somewhat risky because there was a certain safety in the bureaucracy of any large organization, whether government or private, because you knew that, yes, they might be somewhat stiflingly and boring, I guess, or predictable, whatever you might want to call it, but at least they were around, and you could count on them being around. And if you wanted to know what approach was being applied, if you had experienced it once, you knew it. And if you were a government, you knew that this is the GE Way or this is the whatever way, and it was stable. But what you're charting here is something where the only stability might be in the configuration of machines but even that, of course, you know, evolves really rapidly. And even the algorithms and the AIs and whatever is put into the system will evolve. And then, the humans will move around between different organizational units a little quicker than before. So where do you control [laughs] what's happening here? FRODE: So one of the things to keep in mind...I'll answer this from a technical perspective but also from a sociological perspective. So I'll take the latter first. So we are used to a world of hierarchies. So from the invention of agriculture, that's when silos were invented. The first organizational silos were actually centered around corn silos [laughs] and so a shared resource, right? And we need governance for that, you know, who gets the corn and how much your family's already had enough this week and so on. And then, in the Bronze Age, you see more specialization of labor and more hierarchies. So the pyramids were built by determined organizations. [laughs] so just like Melvin Conway would tell us. And the same happened with The Industrial Revolution. So you had management; you had oversight. And then as we are thinking about this matured, you know, we developed this notion of organizational values. So that had to do with the day-to-day behavior so people, including managers, and how they should treat their people and what the employee experience should be like. And then kind of management is about organizing people or organizing people and resources to pursue short or long-term objectives. So, what happens if the AI goes crazy? What happens if there's a bug in the software if there is a flaw? On the technical side of this, what I would say is just like we have people who are concerned about safety with robots, industrial robots in factories, you're going to have people who look at the same kind of thing in organizations. You're also going to have AI watching AIs. So you're going to have a lot of software mechanisms that are there for safety. People also have the option to leave. The threshold for quitting your job now and you log out from your current employer if you're sitting in your home in the Caribbean somewhere [laughs] because you can live wherever you want and logging in somewhere else and taking a job, that threshold is lower than ever. So organizations have an incentive to treat their people well. TROND: Well, the interesting thing, though, is that Silicon Valley has been like that for years. I mean, that was the joke about Silicon Valley that you changed your job faster than you changed your parking space. FRODE: [laughs] TROND: Because your parking space is like really valued territory. It's like, okay, here's where I park. But you might go into a different part of the office building or in a different office building. So this has been part of some part of high tech for the industry for a while. But now I guess you're saying it's becoming globalized and generalized. FRODE: Yeah. And part of it it's the nature of those kinds of jobs, you know, of doing knowledge work that's where you're not tied to equipment or location as much. Now, of course, in Silicon Valley, you've had people go back and forth about, and not just here but in other innovation hubs too, about the importance of being together in the room. You're doing brainstorming. You are talking to potential customers. You're prototyping things with Post-it Notes. People have to be there. And I think there's an added incentive because of the pandemic and people wanting to work from home more to develop better collaboration tools than Post-it Notes on whiteboards. But the last data we have on this is pre-pandemic, so I can't tell you exactly what they are today. But the employee tenures for startups in Silicon Valley when we looked last was 10.8 months average tenure. And for the larger tech companies, you know, the Apples and the Googles and so on, was a little bit more than two years so between two and three years, basically. And so because more jobs in the economy are moving into that category of job where there's a lower threshold for switching, and there's a high demand for people who can do knowledge work, you're going to see average employee tenders going down just like average organization lifespans have been going down because of innovation. TROND: Which presumably, Frode, also means that productivity has to go up because you have to ramp up these people really fast. So your incentive is Frode started yesterday. He's already contributing to a sprint today, and on Thursday, he is launching a product with his team. Because otherwise, I mean, these are expensive workers, and they're only going to be around for a year. When is your first innovation? FRODE: It depends on where the company focuses its innovation. And this will not be the common case, but let's say that you are developing a whole new kind of computing device and a whole new operating system that's going to be very different. You have to learn about everything that's been done so far, and it takes a lot to get started. If what you are doing is more sort of applied, so you're developing apps to be used internally in an insurance company, and you're an app developer, and you know all of the same platforms and tools that they're already using because that was one of the criteria for getting the job, yeah, then you ramp up time is going to be much shorter. All of these companies they will accept the fact, have had to accept the fact, that people just don't stay as long in their jobs. That also gives some added incentive to get them up and running quickly and to be good to people. And I think that's good. I think it's nice that employers have to compete for talent. They have to have to treat their people well. I think it's a much better solution than unions, where you would basically try to have a stranglehold on employers on behalf of all the workers. And the less commoditized work is, the less standardized the work is in that sense. The less business models like those of unions, whether they're voluntarily or involuntarily, because the government sort of makes it easier for them to set up that relationship and sort themselves. The thing that surprised me is that now and as we're coming out of COVID, unions in the United States are making somewhat of a comeback. And I'm sort of scratching my head. Maybe this means that there are a lot of companies where they have scaled because of IT, Amazon being an example. They wouldn't have been able to scale the way they have without information technology. But they haven't yet gotten to the point where they have automated a bunch of these jobs. So they've hired so many people doing soul-sucking repetitive work, and they're doing their best to treat them well. But the whole mentality of the people who have designed this part of the organization is very Taylorist. And so people are complaining, and they're having mental health problems and so on. And then yeah, then there's going to be room for someone to come and say, "Well, hey, we can do a better job negotiating for you." But gradually, over time, fewer and fewer jobs will be like that. One of the sort of interesting aspects of the post-industrial transition is that you have industries...well, some industries, like online retail on the historical scales, is still a young industry. But you have industries that when IT was young, you know, I think the oldest software company in the U.S. was started in 1958. So in the aftermath of that, when you started seeing software on mainframes and so on, what software made possible was scaling up management operations for companies. So they made them more scalable. You could open more plants. You could open more offices, whether it was manufacturing or service businesses. And this happened before people started using software to automate tasks, which is a more advanced use. And the more complex the job is, and the more dexterity is required, physically moving things, the higher the R&D investment is required to automate those jobs. The technology that's involved in that is going to become commoditized. And it's going to spread. And so what you're going to see is even though more people have been hired to do those kinds of jobs because the management operations have scaled, fewer people are going to be needed in the next 10-20 years because the R&D investment is going to pay off for automating all of those tasks. And so then we're going to get back to eventually...I like to think of Amazon as just like it's a layer in the business stack or technology stack. So if I need something shipped from A to B or I need to have some sort of a virtual shopping facility, [laughs] I'm not going to reinvent Amazon, but Amazon has to become more efficient. And so the way they become more efficient is drone delivery of packages and then just-in-time production. And then, they take over everything except for the physical specifications for the product to be manufactured. TROND: It's interesting you say that because I guess if you are Amazon right now, you're thinking of yourself in much wider terms than you just said. But what I'm thinking, Frode is that I'm finding your resident Scandinavian. I'm seeing your Scandinavianhood here. The way you talk about meaningful work, and knowledge work, and how workers should have dignity and companies should treat people well, I found that very interesting. And I think if that aspect of the Scandinavian workplace was to start to be reflected globally, that would be a good thing. There are some other aspects perhaps in Scandinavia which you left behind, and I left behind, that we perhaps should take more inspiration from many other places in the world that have done far better in terms of either manufacturing, or knowledge work, or innovation, or many other things. But that aspect, you know -- FRODE: It's a big discussion itself. I mean, I was kind of a philosophical refugee from Norway. I was a tech-oriented, free-market person. I didn't like unions. I didn't like the government. TROND: [laughs] FRODE: But at the same time, that didn't mean I thought that people should not be treated well that worked into the ground. I thought people should just have healthy voluntary sort of collaborative relationships in business or otherwise. And I've seen technology as a means of making that happen. And I have no sympathy with employers that have trouble with employees because they treat people like crap. I think it's well deserved. But I also have no sympathy with unions that are strong-arming employers. TROND: You have just listened to another episode of the Augmented Podcast with host Trond Arne Undheim. The topic was Post Lean, and our guest was Frode Odegard, Chairman, and CEO at the Post-Industrial Institute. In this conversation, we talked about the post-industrial enterprise. My takeaway is that lean is a fundamental perspective on human organizations, but clearly, there were things not foreseen in the lean paradigm, both in terms of human and in terms of machine behavior. What are those things? How do they evolve? We have to start speculating now; otherwise, we will be unprepared for the future. One of the true questions is job stability. Will the assumptions made by early factory jobs ever become true again? And if not, how do you retain motivation in a workforce that's transient? Will future organizational forms perfect this task? Thanks for listening. If you liked the show, subscribe at augmentedpodcast.co or in your preferred podcast player, and rate us with five stars. And if you liked this episode, you might also like Episode 102 on Lean Manufacturing with Michel Baudin. Hopefully, you'll find something awesome in these or in other episodes, and if so, do let us know by messaging us; we would love to share your thoughts with other listeners. The Augmented Podcast is created in association with Tulip, the frontline operation platform that connects people, machines, devices, and systems in a production or logistics process in a physical location. Tulip is democratizing technology and empowering those closest to operations to solve problems. Tulip is also hiring, and you can find Tulip at tulip.co. Please go ahead and share this show with colleagues who care about where industrial tech is heading. To find us on social media is easy; we are Augmented Pod on LinkedIn and Twitter and Augmented Podcast on Facebook and YouTube. Augmented — industrial conversations that matter. See you next time. Special Guest: Frode Odegaard.

In this episode, I am joined by a very special guest, Christine Li, for a conversation I have been waiting to record for quite a while now. Backstory I am closing in on 30 years of work in Project Management and for most of that time, I, like many of you, have been talking smack about Frederick Taylor. My opinions were based on the things I learned from others along the way and were (obviously) deeply informed by moving from traditional PM over to Agile. As far as I was concerned, this guy was the birth of work misery. But over the past few years, I've started to develop this weird compulsion to stick up for the good bits that came out of his work. I mean, literally, no one working in project management or agile would have a job without this guy. You can also make an argument that without him the United States never would have made it through WWII. Even though I was willing to have Taylor's back in an argument, there was one thing missing… I had never actually read his work. CUE ALL THE PM SHAME! So I did. I read The Principles of Scientific Management. And, to my shock, not only was it easy to read, but it was fun to read how this guy figured out the things he figured out. Yes, there are a few critical issues with his approach (and they are big issues), but there is a TON of good stuff in there that we all ignore because he's such an easy target. (And I really want to go back in time and get hired as SPEED BOSS) After reading it, I was at a lunch and happened to mention my newfound Taylor Fanboy-ness and Christine Li showed up like Yoda, deep with the PM history geek. She took me to school and that is where this conversation starts. My hope is that even if you think Frederick Taylor is the Sauron of Project Management, you'll give this a listen. Maybe it will challenge your understanding of him and his work. Maybe it will (I hope) entice you to read his work. And even if you've read his work and can see the good in it, the things Christine shares will level up your understanding as well. I am very grateful to her for making time for this. It was a really fun conversation. For Further Reading The Principles of Scientific Management by Frederick Taylor bit.ly/3H8XtPG Scientific Management; a History and Criticism by Horace Drury https://bit.ly/3QFhEIr Contacting Christine Web: https://www.sparkplugagility.com Email: christine@sparkplugagility.com

Benchmarking is the comparing of your organization to others to measure your performance and possibly identify areas for improvement. It has been common practice since the early 1900s. Frederick Taylor, an American mechanical engineer, is credited with coining the term "benchmarking" in his book, The Principles of Scientific Management. Benchmarking enables continuous learning and improvement by identifying those that are having an impact and change and following them. These learnings and improvements can nurture the innovation success of your organization. Benchmarking helps you understand how you compare to others in your industry, making it easier to identify the best practices. For example, benchmarking enables you to identify the companies that use the best technology, the fastest production time, or the lowest costs. Whatever the measurement of success you define in your benchmarking activities, a benchmarking study can help an organization's managers make strategic decisions. It may also provide some insights into where to allocate your corporate resources. A common part of the data that gets collected in benchmarking is headcount. All kinds of weird metrics come out of this, such as dollars per revenue. While this is all good, there are also some challenges that we're going to discuss. In general, benchmarking could prove useful in business units where benchmarking data reveals which competitors are performing better than others. However, before benchmarking, you must first conduct research to know who to benchmark against. You want to benchmark peers that are similar to you. You don't want something unrelated, such as comparing a software company to a steel manufacturer. You want something similar. Similar peers could be in the same industry, have similar sizes, or they could be selling and servicing in a consistent geographic area. It can be tempting to say we want to be more like Silicon Valley. If a restaurant in Milwaukee benchmarked itself against the leading companies in Silicon Valley such as Apple, Google, or HP, that comparison would be meaningless. Benchmarking Failures Benchmarking has been around for quite some time, and it has some strong benefits, but there are bad that can come from benchmarking as well. The key here is that benchmarking can have negative consequences if done wrong. For example, if you benchmark against peers who are poorly chosen, it is not going to work. This can lead to bad decision-making and can destroy organizations. Therefore, it is important to handpick your benchmark peers to get accurate insights. For example, in the late 90s and early 2000s, MCI WorldCom, a major telecom company in the United States, was reporting results far better than any of its peers. AT&T and others attempted to benchmark themselves to find out how MCI could have a such standout performance. This resulted in the industry changing its strategies and its investment models to chase the MCI WorldCom results. While their competitors tried to play catch up, MCI WorldCom continued to report surprising results. That is until authorities revealed that MCI WorldCom was practicing fraudulent accounting practices. They overshowed the revenue streams, and they misallocated expenses to make their results look good. People had made decisions based on a benchmark against somebody who looked like they were performing outstandingly. To compete with how MCI was performing, they changed how they operated. MCI WorldCom eventually went bankrupt, but AT&T survived unscathed. They had size, scale, and all the capabilities. However, others in the industry got trapped in the benchmark. They made bad decisions, just like a company that I was at called Teligent. I was one of the original five founders of Teligent, and we got wrapped up in it. We were a competitive local exchange carrier, or what was called a CLEC at the time. We looked at MCI's results and wondered how they were able to deliver those kinds of results. We made decisions to try to drive a performance level the same as MCI WorldCom. Eventually, Teligent ended up in bankruptcy, but I was long gone at this point. Because Wall Street was pounding on every telecom company in the industry to reach those same-level results, fast-paced innovation was essential. People made bad decisions because of a bad benchmark, and that bad benchmark was a result of fraud. The Benchmark Trap As a leader, whatever your role may be, odds are one of the big four consulting firms have either approached you, your CEO, or your board of directors to do an innovation benchmark on your organization. If not, count yourself lucky. If you have done an innovation benchmark, you know the nightmare this can cause for your organization. These engagements are all about comparing how an organization's innovations compare to each other's innovation processes, approach, culture, etc. But why has this become such a hot consulting offer? Leaders in most organizations are feeling very uncertain about innovation. This may be due to their lack of ability to come up with new ideas, or because of their historical inability to implement new ideas successfully. An organization may be able to come up with an idea, but most organizations historically struggle with making those ideas real. How big of a problem is this and what are the consultants zeroing in on? There was a study by the Economist Intelligence Unit that found that only 38% of executives said their organization was, "very good at turning innovative ideas into commercial success". When these kinds of studies come out, consultants are all over it. They quickly create a consulting service to 'fix the problem'. The problem is that only 38% of executives feel very good about their ability to turn innovative ideas into commercial success. When leaders benchmark their innovative approach to others, they're trying to benchmark themselves out of uncertainty and into comfort. They're uncertain because they aren't doing very well. They want to see how other people do it which causes them to try to copy the 38% to be successful. This is part of what I refer to as the benchmark trap. A single organization's benchmarking engagement does not stand on its own because you don't benchmark against yourself. If you benchmark your organization's ability to turn out new ideas into commercial success, you are also benchmarking the quality of your peers who have been benchmarked before. You have to have somebody to benchmark against. This is the service that consultants sell. If you're company A, and consultants have done a benchmark for Company B or Company C, they'll do a comparison so you can determine how well you stack up. Leaders are looking for ways to stack themselves up, so they feel comfortable. However, when you benchmark yourself against competitors or industry best practices, the results will be that you become exactly like them in terms of innovation performance. When you benchmark, you're either trying to compare yourself or you're adopting what is viewed as their best practice to you. This drives everybody in the industry to converge towards the mean in results. You're not going to be the leader. You're going to be me too. It's one of the things I always hated when I was in one of the big six consulting firms. I used to run the telecom consulting practice at Computer Sciences Corporation back in the early 90s. One of the things that we sold was benchmarking, but we also did process reengineering, consulting work, etc. We pushed on this concept of benchmarking, and I traveled all around the world and did these benchmarks. While you're selling it to the leaders, the leaders, therefore, get comfortable because they've got a document they can put in front of their board of directors, investors, or shareholders to show they're just as good or better. As more and more companies within an industry or area focus on benchmarking and adopting best practices, everybody starts to look the same. If Company A has a best practice on innovation, and everybody copies that best practice, assuming that you can copy someone's best practice and be just as effective, you all start to look the same. I think best practices are the stupidest concept ever invented. Over my years of talking companies into doing best practices, I've seen the impact. It makes everybody average, and everybody looks the same. There is no ability to have to stand-up performance when you've adopted the same practices, approach, and strategies as everybody else. No matter how high or how low your original benchmark is, you may have been an absolute leader in sales or innovation if you hadn't followed other's benchmarks. The Dangers of Comparison and Comfort  Innovation in benchmarking can be a powerful tool. It can bring benefits when done correctly. But it can also lead companies astray if it's not handled correctly. Let's discuss some of the consequences of innovation benchmarking. Firstly, leaders run unnecessary risks trying to replicate the benchmark results exactly. We find areas where somebody else is better than us which causes us to want to replicate and adapt it. Why is this a problem? Because benchmarking typically involves leaders looking for insights and inspiration from benchmarking peers. The benchmarking experience is often oversimplified down to exactly what people did, how they did it, when they did it, etc. If they don't, it's a black box. It's oversimplified, and it's not enough detail to where you can duplicate it. We tend to focus on why they did all these different things. Firstly, you don't have all the details, because there are things inherently behind the scenes, and secondly, you're thinking it's a formula. As a result, this can lead companies to take unwarranted financial, strategic, or organizational risks. When you're trying to replicate the benchmark experience of a peer, that experience is often unique to the peer. There's a lot of history in an organization that is not captured in the benchmarking activity. Be careful when leaders run unnecessary risks trying to capture the magic formula of a benchmark. The second consequence is that leaders may benchmark themselves out of uncertainty and into comfort without realizing it. When leaders take benchmarking too far, it leads to what I call the comfort trap. Leaders can miss new opportunities and threats that emerge in the market when they unknowingly benchmark themselves into comfort. While you are looking for insights from your peers, it's important to keep in mind that what works for them, may not work best for your organization. You may have a unique value proposition, a different competitive environment, different costs, or brand equity. Be careful you don't cherry-pick those things that either make you look the same or slightly better, but no worse than your competitors.   The third consequence is that leaders benchmark their competitors rather than taking a fresh look at their innovation approach. This is probably the one that frustrates me the most. I get calls all the time from people who read my book or who have taken the innovation bootcamp, asking why it's not working for them. Be careful, take, what somebody else is doing in the innovation approach is not something you can replicate. They failed to take a fresh look at their innovation approach. They fall into the trap of comparing themselves to others who are not their innovation peers. You want to understand and find people who are innovating, that are similar to you, and not to duplicate or replicate, but adapt to what would work for your organization and your culture. If you're just looking to copy somebody else's innovation process, it will lead to bad decision-making that can destroy your organization. When you benchmark your competition, whether, from other industries, geographies, size, scale, etc., you automatically compare yourself to others who have been successful in completely different strategies for innovation success than yours. Attempting to imitate them will lead to failure. Example: Picking the Wrong Peer Here's a personal example to drive the message home. When I was CTO at HP, the CEO, Mark Hurd, had a quote that was ingrained in everything the executive team did. "If you stare at the numbers long enough, they will eventually confess". Mark established a culture he referred to as "extreme benchmarking". This required every leader at HP to know the key benchmark metrics for each competitor and to have a plan to meet or beat the competitor's benchmark results. There was a lot of pressure from the benchmark numbers being compared to your competitors. If your numbers were not better than theirs, then you weren't running your part of the business appropriately. You had to be prepared to answer a question from Mark, walking down the hall asking, "what were the last quarter's benchmark results for XYZ competitor? And how and what is our current?" It was insane. The result was more than a few poor business decisions on the part of HP. One example that I was directly involved in was the cutting of HP's investment in innovation and R&D, to match the spending of our Asia Pacific-based competitors. Now, to give you some context, HP was spending roughly 3% of product revenue in the PC group on R&D. This included both consumer and commercial business products. To compare, Apple was spending about 9% of product revenue in the R&D group. The peer that Mark was forcing us to compare against, in our Asia Pacific base competitors, was spending 0.8% of product revenue on R&D. There was constant pressure to cut resources or move things like engineering offshore to get the benchmark closer to our peer. And let me tell you, the pressure was intense. This is the perfect example of picking the wrong peer. In the case of all my conversations with Mark Hurd, it was all about this Asia Pacific competitor. I wanted three times the R&D budget so that I could compete with Apple. That was my logical argument. Mark wanted 3% of my revenue on R&D spent down to less than 1%. I pushed back hard on this approach. My one regret was not pushing back even harder or finding a way to convince Mark and others of the folly of this approach. Now you would think with my role and personal passion for innovation, I would have been able to figure this out. Nope, I failed, and it is one of the few regrets from my time as CTO at HP. Now, whenever someone says the word benchmark, my antenna goes up. Whenever you are thinking about doing any kind of comparison, understand the context of the information. Ask yourself if that somebody or thing is a good comparison. I spent almost 10 years in one of the big six consulting houses convincing others to do benchmarks. I've been on the other side of the table, and I'll be the first to admit, that was bad advice. Given it was the most popular advice, it was the advice everybody was giving at the time. In reality, you cannot just duplicate what somebody else is doing. You have to deeply understand the context behind what you are attempting to benchmark against. Conclusion The best way to avoid falling into the innovation benchmark trap is not to benchmark for benchmark's sake. Instead of getting caught in this trap, learn from your peers. Don't assume that what worked for them will work for you. You need to have some discernment as to what would work and what to ignore. If you follow blindly, your organization will become average, or worse, will be destroyed. Instead, look at what your peers are doing and ask yourself two questions: "Why are they innovating that way?" and "what can we learn from that approach?". It is critical to get inside the mind of your innovation peer that you've identified and understand their thought process and discern what of their approach is worth you're experimenting with. Don't adopt at wholesale, find the elements that work and experiment with them. Otherwise, your organization may drive itself right off the innovation cliff.

Benchmarking is the comparing of your organization to others to measure your performance and possibly identify areas for improvement. It has been common practice since the early 1900s. Frederick Taylor, an American mechanical engineer, is credited with coining the term “benchmarking” in his book, The Principles of Scientific Management. Benchmarking enables continuous learning and improvement […]

GC Show w/...John continued on Bronny, then Herrington on Grizz excitement for schedule, Sports Movies later with Jeffery & Frederick Taylor

On The Kenny & JT Show, we're joined by Fr3deR1ck, Emmy Award-wining filmmaker, for a discussion on sports and music documentaries.

This week's episode investigates the dark origins of post-war Germany. Did the victorious Brits help or hinder their former enemies in the difficult process of denazification? Katja and Oliver are joined by the historian and bestselling author Frederick Taylor. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Christopher Mims joins me today. He is a tech columnist at The Wall Street Journal. His new book is Arriving Today: From Factory to Front Door—Why Everything Has Changed About How and What We Buy. We talk about logistics, the long-term impact of COVID-19 on the supply chain, labor differences between Amazon and UPS, Frederick Taylor, and when things will go back to normal. Support the show

In the future, the system must be first.  At least, that's what Frederick Taylor thought when he devised his Scientific Management theory that ended up kicking off the City Efficient Movement. Efficient?  Maybe.  But was it all unicorns, roses, and rainbows?   The Principles of Scientific Management by Frederick Winslow Taylor (1911):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Principles_of_Scientific_Managementhttps://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/archive/scientific-management/ Technical Advisory Corporation (First private planning consulting firm in 1913)http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sdbest/up594/people/Gbford.htm Harland Bartholomew (First full-time employee 1914):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harland_Bartholomewhttps://tclf.org/pioneer/harland-bartholomewhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10999922.2017.1306902?journalCode=mpin20

I’m going to mix things up here a little bit mid-week. A poem, a sketch, a cartoon, a thought, an artist who has something interesting to say about daily work and so on. You won’t know what you’re getting until you’ve got it. Remove the predictability a little bit you might say. Let’s see where it goes…I’ve been reading and listening to David Lynch recently. Here’s what he says about fear and work;“When people are in fear they don't want to go to work. So many people today have that feeling. Then fear starts turning into hate and they begin to hate going to work… If I ran my set with fear, I would get 1%, not 100%, of what I get. And there would be no fun going down the road together.” - David LynchI think the challenge is to be easy about it rather than forceful. I was forceful with my people the whole time. I pushed hard and watched their every move. It’s stifling under that kind of scrutiny. Of course, there have to be standards, and the industry is filled with people with bad habits and poor training who don’t want to improve, to keep higher standards. But that’s the problem when you operate in a game where others decide what your work should look like–you don’t get to be truly creative and so there’s a certain resentment. In a game where the rules are set and people’s creativity is taken from them, they lose their power if indeed they even felt it in the first place. They become disenfranchised and demotivated. There’s no incentive to apply themselves. Ok, there might be a pay packet at the end of the week, but people aren’t motivated by money, not really.The game is rigged. Humans are robots in the machine of production and consumption. Ever since Frederick Taylor made scientific management a thing, people’s creativity and intuition have been dampened, even removed completely. You could argue that this change came about through industrialisation. Today, instead of being able to think for oneself, to be creative and self-expressive, work has become a measurable and quantifiable exercise where your merit and reward is linked to how many widgets you can make in a minute, an hour, a day, a week. It’s the same in services'; you’ve got to be representative of what the company deems appropriate. Whatever happens, you certainly cannot be yourself.There’s no love in that. It’s fear-based the whole way. No wonder people hate their work. My guess is that most people don’t even know there’s something better because all they’ve experienced is the dry and inhospitable contemporary workplace. A desert, you might say. That’s how I operated for years even though something in me knew that nothing would grow there, I kept pushing. Inputs and outputs, soulless shit. Planting seeds in the sand and none of them growing.Operate in this dry and inhospitable place if you must, but understand that for you and those who work under your command, your output must exceed input. If it doesn’t, the game will fail you and you’ll fail the game. Also know that at some point in that input-output game, you may feel disillusioned and unfulfilled. You also might not. It depends where you derive your sense of fulfilment, and indeed, how thin that is.Fear is not a sustainable promoter of growth. It might bring about short-term gain but it sacrifices people in the process. We call it burnout in psychological research terms. It’s ok though, there are always more and more willing to join the long line willing to sacrifice themselves and their potential for a fulfilling creative life for an ideal, not of their own making. Ideas of David Lynch and his kind keep me on track. It pays to read this guy.“Keep your eye on the doughnut, not on the hole. If you keep your eye on the doughnut and do your work, that’s all you can control. You can’t control any of what’s out there, outside yourself. But you can get inside and do the best work you can do.” - David LynchWhat’s the alternative? Find a way out. Read and watch people (there are plenty hiding in plain sight) that do the opposite, who follow a different road. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Peter Drucker is famous for pointing out how much better managers could manage if they only used numbers. His message: “…if you can't measure it, you can't manage it.”  Managing is the business of numbers…or is it? Certainly, Frederick Taylor, the inventor of Scientific Management felt that way.  What neither of them [...]